BR  125  .  M27 5  1923 
McConnell,  Francis  John, 
1871-1953. 

.  .  .  Living  together 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/livingtogetherst00rncco_0 


X 


OTHER  BOOKS  BY  BISHOP  McCONNELL 


CHRISTIAN  FOCUS 
THE  INCREASE  OF  FAITH 
RELIGIOUS  CERTAINTY 
CHRISTMAS  SERMONS 
EDWARD  GAYER  ANDREWS 
THE  DIVINER  IMMANENCE 
THE  ESSENTIALS  OF  METHODISM 
UNDERSTANDING  THE  SCRIPTURES 
PUBLIC  OPINION  AND  THEOLOGY 
THE  PREACHER  AND  THE  PEOPLE 


■rtlMW  ■ 


)t  Jieto  Cra  Hectureofnp,  ftlmbersritp  of 
^>outj)£rn  California— fEfnrfc  Merita 


Living  Together 


Studies  in  the  Ministry 
of  Reconciliation 


By  ■jC' 

FRANCIS  JOHN  McCONNELL 

One  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 


li‘ 

FEB  I 


'l  6  Bit.  i 


THE  ABINGDON  PRESS 
NEW  YORK  CINCINNATI 


Copyright,  1923,  by 
FRANCIS  JOHN  McCONNELL 


All  rights  reserved,  including  that  of  translation  into 
foreign  languages,  including  the  Scandinavian 


Printed  In  the  United  States  of  America 


NOTE 

These  lectures  were  delivered  on  the  New  Era 
Foundation  at  the  University  of  Southern  California 
in  April,  1923.  My  thanks  are  due  Dr.  John  F. 
Fisher,  Dean  of  the  School  of  Religion,  and  Dr. 
Rufus  B.  von  KleinSmid,  President  of  the  Univer¬ 
sity,  for  great  and  innumerable  kindnesses  shown 
me  during  my  stay  at  the  University.  I  was  given 
complete  freedom  both  in  the  choice  of  the  theme 
and  its  treatment.  It  is,  of  course,  understood  that 
I  alone  am  responsible  for  any  opinions  expressed  in 
the  lectures. 

Acknowledgment  is  hereby  made  to  the  editor  of 
the  Journal  of  Religion ,  of  the  University  of  Chicago, 
for  permission  to  use  in  various  parts  of  this  discus¬ 
sion  material  taken  from  an  article  in  “What  Shall 
the  Church  do  with  the  Young  Radicals?”  which  I 
contributed  to  the  Journal  in  July,  1923. 

Francis  J.  McConnell. 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

I.  Living  Together — Presuppositions  ...  9 

II.  Is  Church  Unity  Possible? .  47 

III.  The  Church  and  Labor .  86 

IV.  Can  Patriotism  Be  Saved? .  127 

V.  Better  Terms  With  Science .  167 

VI.  Christianity  and  Rising  Tides  of 

Color .  206 


4 


I 


LIVING  TOGETHER- 
PRESUPPOSITIONS 

The  most  urgent  question  before  the 
Christian  world  to-day  concerns  the  possi¬ 
bility  of  Christianity’s  helping  men  to  live 
together.  We,  of  course,  recognize  this 
duty  in  the  more  immediate  personal  con¬ 
tacts,  as  in  our  relations  to  our  families  and 
to  our  closer  neighbors.  Have  not  our  Ten 
Commandments  told  us  not  to  steal,  nor  to 
bear  false  witness,  nor  to  commit  adultery, 
nor  to  covet,  nor  to  kill?  While  the  facts 
of  private  quarrels  and  of  broken  homes 
are  as  numerous  as  they  are  we  would  not 
boast  that  we  have  made  complete  success 
of  the  Christian  religion  even  in  these  nar¬ 
rower  fields,  but  we  have  done  something. 
The  Christian  family — or  possibly  the  in¬ 
creasing  Christianization  of  the  family — is 
probably  the  largest  single  item  of  social 
gain  thus  far  to  be  put  down  to  humanity’s 
credit. 

When  we  look  away  to  the  wider  social 

9 


10 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


activities  our  discouragement  begins.  So¬ 
cial  classes,  nations,  races  are  arrayed 
against  each  other  to-day  as  never  before. 
If  we  reflect  for  just  an  instant  on  the  pos¬ 
sibilities  of  destruction  lodged  in  our  mod¬ 
ern  scientific  knowledge,  we  are,  in  mo¬ 
ments  of  particularly  deep  depression, 
tempted  to  ask  if  we  are  not  already  en¬ 
tering  into  that  twilight  of  civilization 
whose  imminence  is  the  theme  of  so  many 
despairing  social  students  to-day.  In  our 
childhood  we  used  to  frighten  ourselves 
with  pictures  of  a  Day  of  Judgment  on 
which  by  divine  decree  the  world  and  all 
therein  would  perish  in  huge  conflagration. 
The  child’s  fear  of  a  divinely  caused  cos¬ 
mic  explosion  and  catastrophe  has  given 
way  to  the  man’s  fear  of  a  humanly  caused 
holocaust  in  which  all  traces  of  civilization 
may  pass  in  flame  and  smoke.  Only  one 
great  nation  has  succeeded  in  achieving 
social  stability  through  four  thousand 
years,  and  that  is  the  very  simple  social 
organism  called  China.  Wall  in  China  for 
a  thousand  years  and  at  the  end  of  that 
time  China  would  be  going  on  about  as 
now.  Wall  in  Christendom  for  a  thousand 


PRESUPPOSITIONS 


11 


years  and  at  the  end  of  the  time  there 
might  not  be  anything  or  anybody  left. 

The  first  response  of  the  church  to  the 
present  plight  of  the  world  is  a  call  to 
evangelism,  by  which  is  meant  the  indi¬ 
vidual’s  turning  from  his  sins  and  his  con¬ 
secration  to  unceasing  battle  with  sin  and 
selfishness.  I  would  not  by  an  ounce  of 
power  minimize  the  importance  of  this 
appeal  to  individualistic  evangelism.  It 
will  not  alone,  however,  solve  our  prob¬ 
lems.  May  I,  with  all  respect  to  the 
evangelistically  minded,  say  that  an  em¬ 
phasis  on  individualistic  evangelism  alone 
might  make  our  peril  more  acute?  For  the 
attack  of  such  individualism  is  so  thor¬ 
oughly  on  individual  sin  and  selfishness 
that  the  quickening  of  individual  unselfish¬ 
ness  might  lead  the  newly  aroused  convert 
to  a  passionate  devotion  to  a  cause  socially 
wrong.  It  might  lead  him  to  headlong 
sacrifice  in  a  war  in  which  he  personally 
would  reveal  the  noblest  unselfishness  for 
a  cause  socially  selfish.  A  distinguished 
military  leader  once  urged  upon  me  the 
need  of  preaching  forgiveness  of  sins  and 
faith  in  God  and  immortality  to  soldiers 


12 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


going  into  battle,  for  the  sake  of  making 
them  better  fighters.  We  can  see  here  at 
once  the  possibility  of  utilizing  personal 
unselfishness  for  the  purpose  of  intensifying 
group  selfishness. 

We  are  in  no  better  plight  in  the  field 
of  industry.  The  personal  conversion  of 
selfish  employers  or  selfish  labor  leaders 
might  make  them  more  convinced  of  the 
righteousness  of  their  own  policies.  So 
also  in  the  sphere  of  racial  contacts.  In 
that  field  the  patronizing  attitude  of  a 
white  man  toward  a  black  or  yellow 
man,  or  of  even  a  missionary  toward  a 
convert  from  heathenism,  might  be  prac¬ 
tically  only  little  better  than  outright  neg¬ 
lect.  A  patronizing  spirit  in  such  re¬ 
lationships  is  a  curse,  yet  an  individual’s 
own  tendency  to  patronize  might  be  in¬ 
creased  with  an  emphasis  on  personal 
unselfishness.  If  we  are  to  make  Chris¬ 
tianity  count  as  a  force  helping  men  to 
live  together  in  industrial,  national,  and 
racial  intimacies,  there  must  of  necessity 
be  emphasis  on  bringing  institutional  and 
group  activities  under  the  power  of  Chris¬ 
tianity.  This  does  not  mean  that  we  are 


PRESUPPOSITIONS 


IS 


to  go  forth  on  an  arid  campaign  of  dealing 
with  impersonal  social  factors.  We  are  to 
try  to  help  persons  see  the  longer  reaches 
of  their  personal  power,  and  their  respon¬ 
sibility,  at  least  to  a  degree,  for  the  farther 
reaches  of  that  power.  John  Fiske  used  to 
say  that  the  invention  of  the  telescope  and 
microscope  was  the  same  as  the  addition 
to  human  beings  of  new  eyes,  and  Lotze 
once  whimsically  remarked  that  even  the 
extension  of  human  reach  through  a  walk¬ 
ing  stick  is  an  extension  of  personality.  To 
vary  the  figure  we  may  look  upon  our¬ 
selves  as  trigger-pullers  or  lever-pullers. 
The  man  who  pulls  the  trigger  is  at  least 
partly  responsible  for  what  the  bullet 
strikes,  and  he  who  manipulates  a  lever 
cannot  well  claim  that  he  did  not  know 
that  hammers  would  pound  and  cog-wheels 
tear  and  saws  bite.  We  can,  of  course, 
easily  overdo  the  individual  responsibility 
here,  as  in  any  dealing  with  a  social  organi¬ 
zation,  but  I  am  trying  to  state  the  con¬ 
ception  in  personal  rather  than  impersonal 
terms.  The  institutions  under  which  we 
work  are  man-made,  or  men-made.  Men 
are  running  the  institutions  to-day. 


14 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


Let  us  push  this  just  a  little  further.  We 
all  admit  the  importance  of  some  social 
creations — like  language,  for  example.  Man 
made  language.  Man  made  laws.  Even  if 
the  laws  are  formulated  customs,  the  cus¬ 
toms  are  the  customs  of  people.  We  live 
in  a  man-made  world.  Look  at  a  land  like 
China.  Of  course  the  all-inclusive  natural 
forces  are  mightily  determinative,  but 
within  the  network  of  these  forces  there  is 
play  enough  for  human  activities  to  justify 
us  in  saying  that  even  the  soil  of  China 
has  been  so  worked  over  by  human  hands 
through  four  thousand  years  that  it  is 
virtually  a  man-made  soil.  So  with  any 
preeminently  agricultural  country.  Muscle 
and  brain  are  almost  literally  mixed  with 
the  earth. 

At  this  point  some  one  will  say  that  the 
social  forces  of  the  world  are  themselves 
bringing  men  closer  together  and  that  these 
new  spatial  contacts  are  solving  the  prob¬ 
lems  of  men’s  living  together.  There  is  a 
dreadful  fallacy  here,  the  fallacy  that 
spatial  contact  of  itself  makes  for  spiritual 
fellowship.  It  may  do  nothing  of  the  sort. 
There  is  a  stage  in  personal  and  group 


PRESUPPOSITIONS 


15 


civilization  when  persons  and  peoples  need 
fences.  They  feel  better  toward  one  an- 
other  when  they  are  not  in  too  close  touch. 
A  community  has  come  far  along  toward 
Christian  fellowship  when  the  neighbors 
can  take  down  their  fences.  The  expe¬ 
rience  of  the  last  fifty  years  can  hardly  be 
cited  in  proof  of  the  growth  of  transporta¬ 
tion  systems  as  harbingers  of  new  spiritual 
contacts.  A  road  may  be  a  means  of 
spiritual  communication,  but  we  have  to 
take  account  of  who  is  on  the  road  and 
what  he  is  on  the  road  for.  The  closer 
some  people  and  peoples  get  to  one  an¬ 
other  the  more  danger  of  clash  and  bit¬ 
terness. 

What  we  have  said  about  institutions 
being  in  the  last  analysis  personal  rather 
than  impersonal  may  seem  a  counsel  of 
despair.  Even  if  it  is  all  true,  if  institu¬ 
tions  are  the  extension  of  personal  activi¬ 
ties,  what  can  one  individual  do?  That  is 
just  the  point.  One  individual  alone  can¬ 
not  do  much.  That  is  why  I  protest 
against  his  being  considered  alone.  I 
would  try  to  make  the  individual  see  his 
own  long  radius  of  power  and  to  see  also 


16 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


the  multiplication  of  his  forces  when  he 
sets  himself  to  work  with  his  fellows.  Two 
men  seeking  to  influence  the  thinking  of 
their  time  are  not  two  arithmetically. 
There  is  more  than  even  a  geometrical  in¬ 
crease  of  personal  forces  when  men  in 
larger  and  larger  groups  take  to  acting 
purposely.  Institutions  that  have  grown 
up  in  an  absent-minded  fashion  can  be 
changed  as  men  set  their  minds  to  work 
on  them.  A  shrewd  publicist  once  said 
that  England  became  an  empire  automati¬ 
cally  in  a  fit  of  absent-mindedness.  That 
may  be,  but  she  cannot  remain  an  empire 
except  as  she  goes  at  her  problems  in 
present-minded  fashion,  with  millions  of 
men  the  world  round  deliberately  cooper¬ 
ating  in  a  common  task. 

Looking  now  at  some  principles  which 
must  guide  us  in  our  attempts  as  Chris¬ 
tians  to  help  men  live  together,  we  remark 
first  that  all  Christian  contacts  must  base 
themselves  on  regard  for  the  inalienable 
sacredness  of  every  person.  If  we  could 
once  get  social,  national,  and  international 
groups  to  a  basis  of  mutual  appreciative 


PRESUPPOSITIONS 


17 


respect,  many  of  our  problems  would  solve 
themselves.  It  seems  hopelessly  trite  and 
commonplace  to  say  that  men  should  al¬ 
ways  be  approached  as  men,  but  some  day 
that  trite  and  commonplace  observation 
will  take  on  the  force  of  a  new  discovery, 
significant  enough  fairly  to  stagger  the 
world  into  a  realization  of  the  enormity  of 
some  social  processes.  Ought  men  be  asked 
to  do  work  that  could  be  shifted  to  steel 
arms?  Ought  men  be  asked  to  run  the  risk 
of  disease  and  degradation  in  inhuman  liv¬ 
ing  conditions?  Ought  men  be  ordered 
into  dug-outs  or  poisoned  with  deadly  gas 
or  blown  to  bits  for  the  sake  of  the  capture 
of  sources  of  raw  material?  Ought  men  of 
lower  development  in  tropical  lands  live 
under  systems  of  compulsory  labor  im¬ 
posed  by  men  of  professedly  higher  devel¬ 
opment?  Simple  questions  like  these,  in¬ 
sistently  put,  may  change  or  finally 
overthrow  whole  economic  and  social  sys¬ 
tems.  The  Christian  must  start  with  a 
man’s  worth  on  his  own  account.  The 
student  of  society  tells  us  that  we  can 
never  have  social  peace  without  social  like- 
mindedness.  The  chief  element  in  Chris- 


18 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


tian  like-mindedness  is  the  common 
recognition  of  the  worth  of  a  man  as  a 
man. 

Let  me  use  an  illustration  to  suggest 
that  some  things  must  not  be  done  to  men, 
no  matter  what  the  character  of  the  men 
themselves.  I  know  a  community  which 
during  the  last  war  became  filled  with 
blackest  hatred  against  the  foes  of  the 
United  States.  There  was  in  that  com¬ 
munity  a  man  of  foreign  birth  who  per¬ 
sisted  in  saying  wildly  unpatriotic  things 
against  the  United  States.  One  night  a 
group  of  citizens  drove  this  alien  through 
the  streets  with  a  horse’s  bit  fastened  be¬ 
tween  his  teeth.  As  soon  as  the  war  fever 
began  to  die  down  the  better  citizens  of 
the  community  repented  in  deep  bitterness 
of  the  outrage  upon  the  alien.  In  what 
did  the  outrage  consist?  The  man  was  not 
hurt.  No  blows  were  struck.  His  prop¬ 
erty  was  not  destroyed.  After  the  one  act 
against  him  he  was  not  further  molested. 
There  had  been  no  doubt  as  to  the  un¬ 
patriotic  nature  of  his  utterances.  By  the 
law  of  the  land  he  was  liable  to  imprison¬ 
ment  or  at  least  internment.  Why,  then. 


PRESUPPOSITIONS 


19 


the  bitterness  of  repentance?  Because  a 
human  ideal  had  been  sinned  against.  A 
man  had  been  treated  in  a  way  in  which 
no  man  ever  should  be  treated,  no  matter 
what  he  has  done,  for  even  the  punish¬ 
ments  of  men  should  conform  to  the  re¬ 
gards  of  essential  humanity.  Respect  for 
humanity  in  myself  and  in  others  is  the 
first  step  toward  the  reconciliation  of 
groups  and  of  nations  and  of  races.  In 
spite  of  what  I  have  previously  said  against 
impersonalism  there  has  to  be  a  trace  of 
something  almost  impersonal  here.  A  par¬ 
ticular  individual  may  not  be  himself  espe¬ 
cially  respectable,  and  it  is  hard  to  give 
respect  long  to  what  is  not  inherently 
respectable.  The  matter  is  not  wholly  one 
of  the  personal  desert  of  the  individual. 
The  individual  is  made  in  fashion  as  a 
man,  and  since  he  is  a  man  he  must  be 
treated  as  a  man.  He  has  an  inalienable 
title  to  our  Christian  respect,  no  matter 
who  he  is,  or  what  he  is,  or  whether  he 
does  or  does  not  care  anything  about 
such  matters  himself.  While  we  cannot  in 
detail  tell  how  to  state  the  claim  of  human¬ 
ity  on  all  occasions,  in  general  the  Chris- 


20 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


tian  must  found  a  new  society  on  the  basis 
that  these  claims  are  absolute.  Funda¬ 
mentally  all  men  stand  alike  on  the  one 
plane  of  their  humanity. 

Now,  let  us  step  over  to  another  point 
of  view  and  talk  in  phrases  which  may 
seem  to  contradict  what  we  have  just  been 
saying.  If  there  is  something  which  we 
hold  as  absolute  in  the  claim  of  a  man 
because  he  is  a  man,  there  is  something 
also  admittedly  relative  in  the  same  claim, 
which  is  for  the  cynic  excuse  for  bitter 
sport  and  for  the  Christian  the  ground  for 
the  largest  charity.  While  men  are  all 
alike  men,  it  is  also  true  that  even  the 
best  men  and  the  best  groups  are  in  process 
of  continual  improvement.  It  has  been 
said  that  the  loftiest  characteristic  of  man 
is  his  capability  for  being  endlessly  im¬ 
proved.  We  are  not  dealing  with  finished 
creations  when  we  are  dealing  with  men. 
We  have  not  to  do  with  animals  on  the 
one  hand,  or  with  angels  on  the  other,  but 
with  beings  capable  of  passing  out  of 
animalism  into  a  state  better  than  that  of 
any  angels  which  have  ever  been  described 
to  us.  All  men  are  men,  with  the  differ- 


PRESUPPOSITIONS 


21 

ences  between  them  slight  and  insignificant 
as  compared  with  the  difference  between 
man  and  anything  below  him  in  the  scale 
of  being.  Still,  the  differences  between 
men  and  the  differences  between  social 
groups  and  nations  and  races  do  count. 
It  is  a  plain  duty  to  recognize  these  dif¬ 
ferences,  but  to  distinguish  differences  in 
differences.  For  some  differences  between 
groups  come  out  of  the  differing  rates  of 
progress  of  the  groups,  and  some  differ¬ 
ences  may  have  a  deep  root  pointing  to 
something  distinctive  in  the  group.  The 
absoluteness  of  man  as  man  and  the  rela¬ 
tivity  of  men  as  men  are  alike  real. 

We  have  said  that  this  relativity  of  de¬ 
velopment  is  a  ground  for  social  charity. 
Lacking  such  charity  it  is  easy  to  make 
an  individual  or  group  appear  hypocritical 
and  false  because  of  a  contradiction  in 
character  or  activity.  With  the  more  char¬ 
itable  view  the  contradiction  is  seen  to  be 
between  the  part  of  the  nature  or  of  the 
life  which  has  been  brought  under  moral 
control,  it  may  be,  and  the  part  which 
has  not.  Redemption  of  human  life  is  like 
the  clearing  away  of  a  jungle  or  the  drain- 


22 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


in g  of  a  swamp.  We  do  not  call  the  re¬ 
deemer  of  the  land  false  or  hypocritical 
because  not  all  the  forest  or  swamp  is  con¬ 
quered.  We  simply  say  that  the  work  is 
not  yet  complete.  So  when  we  come  upon 
oozy  swamps  in  social  life,  or  stand  at  the 
edge  of  a  social  jungle  and  hear  the  tigers 
call,  all  that  is  necessary  to  say  is  that  the 
work  of  redemption  is  not  yet  perfect.  It 
has,  moreover,  been  established  of  old  that 
social  misdeeds  are  not  to  be  branded  as 
purposely  wicked  if  they  are  not  recog¬ 
nized  by  their  doers  as  evil.  To  those  who 
know  better  these  things  are  sin,  but  they 
may  not  involve  for  the  people  who  ig¬ 
norantly  practice  them  the  moral  upset 
which  comes  from  open-eyed  sinning 
against  an  ideal.  Polygamy,  infanticide, 
and  such  evils  are  largely  passing  away 
even  among  backward  peoples,  thank 
Heaven,  but  among  backward  peoples  they 
have  never  meant  the  moral  obliquity  they 
would  have  meant  among  twentieth-century 
Americans  or  Europeans.  Without  lower¬ 
ing  our  own  standards  we  are  morally  obli¬ 
gated  to  train  ourselves  to  see  how  life 
looks  through  eyes  other  than  our  own, 


PRESUPPOSITIONS 


23 


so  far  as  such  a  feat  of  spiritual  imagina¬ 
tion  is  humanly  possible. 

In  seeking  social  progress  the  Christian 
ought  not  to  forget  that  he  is  dealing  with 
living  organisms,  be  these  organisms  indi¬ 
viduals  or  groups  of  individuals.  The 
Christian  message  that  Christ  is  the  Key 
to  the  meaning  of  man’s  life  and  of  God’s 
life,  will  have  to  be  stated  in  such  terms 
that  it  can  be  seized  by  life  processes.  It 
is  food,  drink,  air!  It  must  be  seized  as 
all  nourishment  is  seized — by  an  effort  and 
appropriation  of  will.  The  word  of  Jesus 
is  not  merely  to  be  listened  to,  but  to  be 
consumed,  to  be  taken  into  the  life  as  the 
rule  of  life. 

It  is  in  awaiting  this  appropriation  of 
the  truth  by  an  organism  that  we  have 
need  of  patience,  patience,  and  still  more 
patience.  There  is  no  telling  beforehand 
where  obedient  acceptance  of  the  life  of 
Christ  will  lead  either  an  individual  or  a 
group.  Some  of  the  truth  as  we  present 
it  will  be  worked  over  and  discarded;  some 
of  it  will  be  fused  with  elements  of  which 
we  have  never  thought;  some  of  it  will  be 
endowed  with  an  energy  of  which  we  had 


u 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


no  premonitions.  All  formal  statements 
are  instrumental.  When  we  give  a  group 
a  gospel  we  give  a  tool  or  a  food  or  a  gar¬ 
ment.  That  group  may  fashion  over  the 
tool  to  new  purposes,  or  out  of  the  food 
may  build  a  type  of  physical  strength  we 
did  not  foresee,  or  wear  the  garments  in  a 
fashion  utterly  unlike  anything  ever  be¬ 
fore  seen.  Paul  once  said  that  he  was  sure 
that  life  could  not  separate  him  from  the 
love  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord.  If 
we  are  dealing  with  real  life,  that  life  will 
lead  us  to  and  not  away  from  Christ.  We 
are  all  a  little  afraid  to  let  the  life  in  Christ 
run  its  full  course  in  social  realms,  but  the 
life  would  and  could  lead  only  to  Christ. 

It  is  out  of  some  clear  recognition  that 
we  are  all  human  beings  and  out  of  some 
charitableness  of  mutual  understanding  and 
tolerance  toward  human  differences  that 
we  shall  finally  succeed  in  finding  ways  to 
live  together  as  groups.  May  I  say  also 
that  this  intelligent  charity  and  regard  will 
finally  have  to  go  far  enough  to  respect 
persons  and  groups  whom  we  cannot  fully 
understand  and  whose  peculiarities  may 
not  come  merely  out  of  the  stage  of  human 


PRESUPPOSITIONS 


25 


experience  through  which  they  are  passing. 
The  peculiarities  may  be  part  of  the  na¬ 
tive  furnishing  of  the  individual  or  group 
mind,  and  I  may  not  be  able  to  bring  my¬ 
self  to  adequate  understanding  of  or  sym¬ 
pathy  with  them.  Assuming  that  these 
distinctive  marks  do  not  come  of  anti¬ 
social  purpose  and  are  not  being  put  upon 
me,  what  is  to  be  my  attitude  toward  those 
who  hold  them?  Tolerance.  It  may  be 
that  some  group  views  are  a  necessity  of 
the  life  of  human  beings  of  temperament 
radically  different  from  my  own;  it  may 
be  that  they  are  the  expression  of  social 
moods  to  which  I  cannot  attain.  It  may 
be  also,  in  a  word,  that  they  are  literally 
and  strictly  none  of  my  business.  What, 
in  the  name  of  all  that  is  human,  is  to  be 
the  use  of  living  together  if  everybody  is 
always  to  live  out  in  the  full  glare  of  pub¬ 
licity,  with  no  thoughts  peculiarly  any¬ 
body’s  own?  One  reason  for  the  search 
for  a  way  to  live  together  better  is  to  get 
rid  of  the  features  of  social  existence  which 
hinder  our  attending  to  our  own  spiritual 
business,  or  thwart  our  being  partisans  of 
our  own  chosen  groups,  or  fighters  for  our 


26 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


own  ideas.  The  tolerance  I  mean  does  not 
imply  a  stupid  impartiality.  It  implies 
liberty  for  partialities. 

Was  it  not  Edward  Bellamy  who  told  of 
a  psychic  isle  where  a  shipwrecked  traveler 
found  the  natives  laughing  every  time  he 
tried  to  speak?  After  a  little  it  dawned 
upon  him  that  the  strange  islanders  were 
laughing  just  because  he  was  speaking, 
whereas  the  psychic  conditions  were  such 
that  all  his  thoughts  lay  open  and  exposed 
to  the  psychic  islanders  without  the  use 
of  words.  If  that  is  a  picture  of  a  fully 
socialized  group,  I  don’t  want  to  join  it. 
We  are  not  indeed  to  harbor  selfish  or 
mean  secrets,  but  we  are  to  hold  to  an 
inviolable  sacredness  of  personal  life — no 
harm  in  calling  it  absolutely  sacred — on 
which  we  must  build  if  we  are  to  live  to¬ 
gether  on  terms  that  make  life  worth  liv¬ 
ing.  John  Dewey  spoke  profoundly  when 
he  said  of  the  Chinese,  for  example,  that 
the  Chinese  faults  come  largely  out  of  the 
fact  that  from  the  cradle  to  the  grave 
the  Chinese  live  too  much  under  the 
scrutiny  of  one  another.  The  life  is  too 
public,  without  enough  of  the  privacy 


PRESUPPOSITIONS  27 

which  makes  for  the  peculiar  and  dis¬ 
tinctive. 

All  of  my  discussion  proceeds  on  the 
assumption  of  democratic  method,  of 
course,  with  the  majority  vote  settling  all 
ordinary  questions.  Democracy  assumes 
that  men  will  be  good  losers  and  that  they 
will  adjust  themselves  to  the  decisions  of 
the  majority,  either  to  give  that  decision 
its  chance  or  to  work  for  its  repeal  by 
orderly  method.  Often  it  happens  that 
the  outworking  of  a  decisive  vote  accepted 
in  good  faith  leads  even  the  opponents  of 
the  vote  to  concede  its  wisdom.  In  all 
democracy,  however,  there  must  be  care 
for  the  preservation  of  everything  that  is 
worth  while  in  the  distinctiveness  of  the 
separate  life. 

Another  prerequisite  of  Christian  living 
together  is  the  possibility  of  absorption  of 
various  groups  in  common  tasks.  There 
was  in  a  far-off  period  of  church  history 
a  debate  about  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
which  seems  singularly  remote  to  us  of 
to-day.  In  fact,  it  is  so  remote  that  it 
seems  almost  unearthly  in  its  lack  of  con- 


28 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


nection  with  anything  that  now  appears 
real.  The  debate  had  to  do  with  the  so- 
called  filioque  clause  in  the  old  creed.  The 
question  was  as  to  whether  the  Holy  Spirit 
proceeded  from  the  Son  as  well  as  from 
the  Father  in  an  orthodox  interpretation 
of  the  Trinity. 

It  is  hard  to  believe  that  such  a  question 
as  this  ever  could  have  been  discussed  out¬ 
side  of  theological  schools,  and  it  is  equally 
hard  to  see  how  it  could  have  been  dis¬ 
cussed  in  the  schools  in  any  but  an  aca¬ 
demic  fashion.  Still  th e  filioque  clause  was 
once  the  theme  of  heated,  even  angry  de¬ 
bates,  not  only  in  the  schools  but  upon  the 
streets.  Of  course,  much  of  the  popular 
debate  had  to  do  with  other  than  strictly 
theological,  or  even  religious,  concerns. 
Loyalty  to  leaders  and  devotion  to  parties 
entered  in  to  add  fire  to  the  arguments. 
Nevertheless,  there  were  two  important 
theological  considerations  at  stake.  One, 
as  we  all  know,  had  to  do  with  the  place 
which  was  to  be  assigned  to  Christ  in  the 
universe.  Was  he  equal  to  the  Father? 
It  may  not  be  too  much  to  say  that  the 
future  of  Christianity  turned  upon  the 


PRESUPPOSITIONS 


29 


answer  to  that  question,  and  it  was  around 
that  question  that  the  debate  chiefly  cen¬ 
tered. 

The  other  theological  question  was  not 
so  clearly  on  the  surface,  but  it  was  im¬ 
plied  in  the  debate  nevertheless.  The  old 
theologies  were  trying  to  get  a  ground  of 
unity  in  the  Godhead.  They  did  not  con¬ 
ceive  of  the  Trinity  as  three  independent 
Gods.  They  united  Son  and  Spirit  to  the 
Father  by  a  thought  of  “procession”  which 
it  is  a  strain  for  us  to  follow;  and  more 
important  than  philosophical  unity  in  the 
Godhead,  in  their  thought,  was  spiritual 
unity.  They  early  saw  that  Father  and 
Son  could  not  vitally  be  united  if  each 
were  just  the  object  of  the  loving  gaze  of 
the  other.  So  they  made  the  forth-going 
of  the  Spirit  a  mighty  enterprise  in  which 
each  wTas  alike  implicated.  The  fellowship 
of  Father  and  Son  was  a  fellowship  in  the 
Spirit,  in  the  sending  forth  of  the  Spirit 
and  in  the  on-goings  of  the  Spirit.  Father 
and  Son  were  to  find  their  fellowship  not 
in  gazing  directly  upon  one  another,  but  in 
a  vast  putting  forth  of  energy,  with  a  com¬ 
mon  aim,  upon  a  common  object.  The 


30 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


early  thinkers  of  the  church  were  trying  to 
found  a  Divine  Society  in  the  life  of  God 
himself,  and  they  made  the  Spirit  the  bond 
of  union  between  Father  and  Son. 

We  may  not  argue  for  the  Trinity  to-day 
in  the  terms  of  the  church  Fathers.  Nev¬ 
ertheless,  there  is  at  the  heart  of  this  old 
phrasing  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  a 
truth  from  which  we  can  never  escape, 
namely,  that  fellowship  is  an  affair  of  more 
than  two  and  of  at  least  three.  To  be  sure, 
the  third  factor  may  be  impersonal,  but 
the  fellowship  of  two  depends  for  its  full 
realization  on  the  devotion  of  both  to 
something  outside  themselves.  Fellowship 
does  not  arise  just  out  of  the  resolution  of 
individuals  or  groups  to  be  fellows  one  of 
another.  Fellowship  is  a  by-product,  is¬ 
suing  out  of  the  devotion  of  persons  or 
groups  of  persons  to  some  common  cause. 

This  is  obvious  enough  when  we  stop  to 
think  about  it,  and  it  becomes  clearer  the 
longer  we  think.  Commonplace  as  the 
principle  appears  at  first  sight,  it  begins 
to  reach  out  to  far-ranging  social  implica¬ 
tions  upon  a  little  close  examination. 

Take  the  institution  which  is  thus  far, 


PRESUPPOSITIONS 


SI 


with  all  its  faults,  the  outstanding  achieve¬ 
ment  of  our  race — the  human  family.  John 
Fiske’s  contribution  to  the  doctrine  of  evo¬ 
lution  consisted  in  showing  the  significance 
of  the  lengthening  period  of  infancy  for 
mankind.  It  is  true  that  Fiske  was  not 
directly  concerned  with  the  thought  to 
which  I  am  now  calling  attention,  but  the 
idea  which  I  have  in  mind  fits  har¬ 
moniously  into  his  teaching — the  idea, 
namely,  that  fellowship  between  husband 
and  wife  deepens  into  true  marriage  not 
with  the  direct  attachment  of  husband 
and  wife  to  each  other  merely,  but  with 
their  absorption  in  their  duties  as  father 
and  mother.  True  love  must  always  be 
the  foundation  of  the  home,  but  love  be¬ 
comes  not  less  but  more  true  with  the 
devotion  to  a  common  object  of  their  in¬ 
terested  affection.  Hence  that  strange 
paradox  which  we  so  often  find  in  married 
life — that  the  more  love  seeks  to  confine 
itself  directly  to  husband  and  wife  the 
more  likely  it  is  to  vanish,  and  the  more 
the  two  throw  themselves  together  into  a 
common  task  the  more  likely  is  their  affec¬ 
tion  for  each  other  to  deepen.  Thus  it 


32 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


comes  about  that  normally,  with  full  al¬ 
lowance  for  the  abnormal  and  exceptional, 
the  home  in  wThich  there  are  children  is 
likely  to  be  the  scene  of  greatest  affection 
between  husband  and  wife.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  childless  home  is  always  in 
danger  unless  the  husband  and  wife  find 
some  cause  into  which  they  can  together 
throw  their  united  energies. 

These  chapters  of  mine  will  to  the  casual 
reader  seem  at  many  points  to  be  in  con¬ 
tradiction  to  one  another.  In  one  place  I 
say  that  marriage  is  contrived  to  help  both 
men  and  women  lead  distinctive  lives.  I 
am  not,  however,  in  fundamental  contra¬ 
diction  with  that  when  I  say  that  marriage 
aims  at  partnership  also  of  common  effort. 
The  modern  movement  toward  separate 
careers  for  married  women  is  commendable 
enough  within  limits,  these  limits  being  set 
by  the  necessity  of  both  the  man  and  the 
woman  finding  some  cause  in  which  they 
can  work  together.  Love  in  courtship 
may  grow  with  the  direct  attention  of  the 
lovers  to  each  other.  In  married  life  it  is 
more  likely  to  grow  with  the  devotion  of 
both  to  a  common  task. 


PRESUPPOSITIONS 


33 


The  problem  of  living  together  comes 
down  in  the  end  to  the  formation  of  friend¬ 
ships,  or,  at  least,  of  a  friendly  spirit.  We 
must  insist  that  the  best  friendships  do 
not  come  from  the  direct  attempt  of  peo¬ 
ple  to  be  friendly  to  one  another.  There 
is  indeed  always  need  of  our  cultivation  of 
the  ability  to  take  the  other  man’s  point 
of  view,  but  we  must  add  to  this  that  the 
highest  friendship  arises  almost  of  itself 
out  of  devotion  to  common  tasks. 

This  indirectness  of  attainment  of  fel¬ 
lowship  is  a  mark  of  the  Christian  system. 
It  has  been  taught  from  the  beginning  that 
the  chief  path  to  knowledge  of  God  is  not 
the  direct  contemplation  of  God.  Direct 
contemplation  of  God  Christianity  does 
indeed  call  for,  but  the  main  path  is 
through  doing  the  will  of  God.  It  will  be 
remembered  that  at  the  close  of  the  Ser¬ 
mon  on  the  Mount  Jesus  tells  us  that  the 
foundation  under  the  superstructure  of  the 
Christian  building  is  laid  deep  as  men 
“do”  their  Master’s  words.  The  appeal  is 
to  an  activity  of  will  which  loses  itself  in 
the  Christian  task.  On  the  foundation 
thus  laid  men  attain  to  a  certainty  of  con- 


34 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


vietion  concerning  religious  truth,  an  aware¬ 
ness  of  the  value  of  divine  things,  a  keen¬ 
ness  of  spiritual  insight  which  we  have  in 
mind  when  we  talk  of  communion  with 
God.  There  is  indeed  ample  place  for  the 
man  who  starts  out  deliberately  to  be  a 
friend  of  God,  but  the  friendship  will  never 
get  far  just  on  a  basis  of  standing  still  to 
contemplate  God.  Such  contemplation  is 
the  essence  of  some  heathen  religions. 

It  may  seem  to  some  that  we  have 
turned  things  around  in  trying  to  make 
friendship  for  God  throw  light  upon  friend¬ 
ship  for  men.  We  are,  however,  trying  to 
look  at  this  problem  from  the  point  of  view 
of  Christianity.  Christian  fellowship  for 
one’s  fellow  is  on  the  same  plane  as  Chris¬ 
tian  fellowship  with  God.  We  come  into 
fellowship  with  God  by  working  with  God, 
and  we  come  into  fellowship  with  our  fel¬ 
lows  in  working  with  them.  If  I  am  to 
work  together  with  God,  I  start  on  the 
assumption  that  God  understands  me,  and 
that  I  must  understand  him.  Beyond  that 
the  deeper  understanding  comes  out  of  de¬ 
votion  to  a  common  task. 

There  are  three  distinct  and  progressive 


PRESUPPOSITIONS 


85 


notes  of  emphasis  in  Christian  experience. 
The  first  is  one’s  own  consciousness  of  need 
of  salvation.  It  would  be  folly  in  any  way 
to  minimize  this.  The  saints  have  started 
on  their  saintly  careers  in  this  concern  for 
themselves.  The  second  note  is  that  of 
emphasis  on  the  service  of  our  fellows. 
When  this  reaches  such  intensity  of  devo¬ 
tion  to  our  fellow  men  that  we  no  longer 
insistently  raise  the  question  as  to  our  own 
spiritual  state  we  are  most  genuinely  saved 
ourselves.  There  is  a  third  emphasis, 
namely,  that  on  an  increasing  awareness  of 
a  divine  plan  in  the  world  for  which  we 
should  seek  to  work  in  cooperation  with 
our  fellows.  This  reaches  out  beyond  the 
needs  of  any  group  with  which  we  may  be 
in  immediate  contact.  In  one  sense  it  is 
impersonal,  “a  cause,”  “a  plan,”  “a  world 
scheme,”  though  it  must  always  be  inter¬ 
preted  in  personal  terms.  These  three 
stages  are,  while  intermingled  beyond  the 
drawing  of  sharp  demarcations,  neverthe¬ 
less  separate  phases  of  experience  into 
which  men  come  by  processes  of  spiritual 
new  birth. 

I  am  loath  to  leave  this  conception  of 


36 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


growth  of  fellowship  through  devotion  to 
common  tasks.  How  far  do  we  get  into 
fellowship  with  the  man  who  is  profes¬ 
sedly  and  openly  trying  to  be  a  friend? 
The  world,  of  course,  needs  such  deliberate 
friendliness,  but  that  is  not  the  surest 
path  to  expression  of  the  friendly  spirit. 
Suppose  a  hostess  bent  on  having  her 
guests  friendly  to  one  another  should  wel¬ 
come  a  group  of  persons  mutually  strangers 
with  a  general  exhortation  to  them  all  to 
get  acquainted  with  one  another.  An 
evening  spent  after  such  an  introduction 
as  that  to  strangers  would  bore  a  normal 
person  almost  to  suffocation.  For  mutual 
acquaintance-making  there  must  be  some¬ 
thing  outside  ourselves  in  which  we  can 
lose  ourselves.  That  something  may  for 
the  moment  be  trivial  enough,  or  silly 
enough,  but  it  serves  the  purpose  of  bring¬ 
ing  us  together  on  such  terms  that  we  are 
not  thinking  of  ourselves.  Self-conscious¬ 
ness  will  spoil  anything  from  a  social  party 
to  a  campaign  for  the  evangelization  of 
the  world.  The  spiritual  excellences  which 
call  forth  the  admiring  friendship  of  men 
do  not  come  out  of  deliberate  and  purpose- 


PRESUPPOSITIONS 


37 


ful  striving.  I  have  heard  George  Herbert 
Palmer  tell  of  a  dinner  in  Cambridge  years 
ago  at  which  the  men  then  foremost  in 
American  letters  were  guests.  Somehow 
the  idea  got  about  that  these  shining  lights 
were  expected  to  say  things  intentionally 
and  purposefully  brilliant.  The  lights, 
thus  aroused  to  self-consciousness,  paled 
into  dimness  and  then  feebly  sputtered 
into  darkness.  There  was  no  more  bril¬ 
liancy  than  among  a  party  of  imbeciles. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  anything  could  have 
made  all  present  forget  themselves  in  the 
discussion  of  a  theme  outside  themselves, 
there  would  no  doubt  have  been  bright 
flashes  enough.  So  with  friendship,  with 
comradeship,  with  saintliness.  All  arrive 
as  something  outside  themselves  is  the 
chief  aim. 

The  more  serious  this  common  aim  the 
deeper  the  fellowship.  Airy  nothings, 
trifles  light  as  air,  may  do  for  the  purely 
social  event.  Even  skill  in  dancing,  or 
proficiency  in  social  conventional  games, 
may  act  as  the  substitute  for  something 
more  worth  while  with  those  whose  mental 
resources  are  limited,  though  the  friend- 


38 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


ships  founded  on  such  bases  are  not  to  be 
taken  with  especial  seriousness.  Deeper 
comradeship  begins  where  men  take  to 
“talking  shop,”  and  deeper  still  when  the 
life  moves  out  in  the  direction  of  making 
the  world  safe  for  anything  worth  while. 

We  shall  return  to  this  theme  repeatedly 
throughout  our  discussion.  We  shall  have 
much  to  say  about  getting  together,  but 
the  getting  together  is  to  break  away  from 
the  self-centered  policies  of  any  parties  to 
the  getting  together.  There  is  proceeding 
in  almost  all  the  larger  social  groups  to-day 
a  double  movement,  an  intensification  of 
the  activities  of  the  particular  groups 
themselves  and  at  the  same  time  a  trend 
toward  larger  federative  connections.  This 
is  true  in  industrial,  ecclesiastical,  political 
relationships.  The  trade  unions  that  lay 
the  most  stress  on  comradeship  in  their 
own  crafts  seek  alliances  with  more  in¬ 
clusive  groups.  The  denominations  that 
place  the  greatest  emphasis  on  close  com¬ 
munion  reach  out  after  some  alliance  with 
other  denominations.  The  nations  that 
stand  most  stiffly  for  self-determination 
call  for  a  league  of  nations.  There  are 


PRESUPPOSITIONS 


39 


many  reasons  for  this.  One  is  that  each 
group  instinctively  feels  that  it  may  lose 
its  own  closeness  of  fellowship  among  its 
own  members  if  it  has  not  some  consider¬ 
able  outside  contact  to  which  those  mem¬ 
bers  may  give  themselves  with  at  least  a 
measure  of  self-abandonment. 


Granting  all  this  to  be  true,  what  can 
the  Christian  do  about  it?  He  can  at 
least  call  for  a  wider  application  of  Chris¬ 
tianity.  In  what  I  said  about  evangelism 
in  an  earlier  paragraph  I  was,  of  course, 
thinking  of  evangelism  in  the  narrowly  in¬ 
dividualistic  sense.  As  I  draw  to  the  close 
of  this  first  address  I  wish  to  say  that  a 
larger  evangelism  is  the  only  solution  of 
the  problem  before  us.  All  the  terms  of 
which  we  so  often  make  use  in  evangelistic 
appeal  are  in  order  in  helping  men  to  live 
together  in  the  wider  contacts.  We  need 
to  get  rid  of  sin,  to  repent,  to  be  converted 
and  born  again;  but  we  must  put  a  richer 
content  into  the  old  terms. 

We  know  that  it  is  the  individual  who  is 
the  only  actual  reality  in  the  social  organ¬ 
ism.  The  social  gospel  is  a  gospel  for 


40 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


individuals  in  social  relationships.  We  are 
not  asking  an  impersonal  social  organism 
to  repent.  We  are  asking  individuals  to 
repent,  and  to  be  born  again  in  their  social 
relationships.  A  man’s  central  purpose  as 
an  individual  may  be  converted,  but  the 
conversion  may  not  extend  to  his  wider 
contacts.  This  does  not  imply  hypocrisy. 
It  means  merely  an  imperfect  work  of 
grace,  or,  at  least,  an  incomplete  or  un¬ 
enlightened  work. 

The  wider  conversion  calls  first  of  all  for 
the  direct  attack  on  the  evils  which  make 
contacts  between  man  and  man  harmful 
rather  than  helpful.  Christianity  does  not, 
indeed,  throw  anything  away;  that  is  to 
say,  Christianity  never  leaves  an  empty 
place.  It  does  not  destroy  for  the  sake  of 
destroying,  but  for  the  sake  of  fulfilling. 
Nevertheless,  Christianity  does  directly  at¬ 
tack  evil.  Just  as  a  health  officer  fares 
forth  positively  to  kill  disease  germs  so 
Christianity  wars  on  the  germs  of  selfish¬ 
ness,  of  group  selfishness  as  well  as  of 
individual  selfishness.  Christianity  calls 
for  collective  repentance  as  soon  as  collec¬ 
tive  evils  are  discovered.  How  can  a  man 


PRESUPPOSITIONS 


41 


repent  for  something  of  which  he  is  not 
individually  guilty?  How  can  a  man  feel 
guilty  of  something  which  is  the  sin  of 
thousands  among  whom  he  is  just  one? 
I  don’t  know.  All  I  do  know  is  that  saints 
throughout  all  ages  have  thus  felt  guilty 
for  the  sms  which  men  do  collectively.  To 
speak  theologically,  there  is  hardly  a 
theory  of  atonement  in  the  history  of 
Christian  doctrine  that  teaches  that  sin  is 
only  the  sum  of  the  individual  sins  of  indi¬ 
vidual  sinners.  Almost  every  theory  con¬ 
ceives  of  sin  as  not  merely  individual  but 
also  as  collective.  Sin  binds  men  together 
as  an  evil  net.  In  the  older  theories,  it 
came  down  to  men  by  descent  and  tainted 
them  all.  The  provision  in  Christ  was  not 
only  for  individuals  as  distinct,  but  for 
men  in  their  connection  as  members  of  a 
sin-cursed  race.  There  is  a  large  measure 
of  social  redemption  which  can  come  only 
as  the  prophets  of  God  call  upon  people 
for  repentance  for  collective  sin.  In  such 
preaching  the  prophets  are  not  making  a 
departure  from  Christianity,  but  a  return 
to  it. 

Again,  we  need  to  be  told  to  “turn,”  to 


42 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


be  converted  in  our  social  activities.  Con¬ 
version,  on  the  human  side,  is  turning.  It 
is  possible  for  men,  every  one  of  whom  has 
been  converted  in  the  narrower  meaning, 
to  be  in  their  collective  movement  going 
in  the  wrong  direction.  We  are  like  men 
on  a  ship — walking  the  deck  toward  the 
east  while  the  boat  itself  is  carrying  us 
west.  The  need  of  repentance  appears  in 
the  fact  that  if  we  all  together  choose  to 
have  it  so,  we  can  change  the  course  of  the 
ship.  In  some  of  our  activities  as  mem¬ 
bers  of  groups  and  churches  and  nations 
and  races  we  need  to  bring  the  boat 
squarely  around.  We  are  headed  west 
when  we  should  be  headed  east.  Or  if 
we  are  not  headed  dead  wrong,  we  are 
enough  off  the  course  to  be  in  peril  our¬ 
selves  and  to  be  a  peril  to  others. 

Once  more,  to  keep  close  to  the  gospel 
phrase,  we  need  to  be  “born  again.”  We 
have  got  so  far  away  from  some  of  those 
essentials  of  which  I  have  been  speaking, 
from  regard  for  men  as  men,  from  the  duty 
of  dealing  charitably  with  men  as  men, 
from  the  duty  of  seeking  fellowship  with 
men  in  cooperation  in  common  tasks,  that 


PRESUPPOSITIONS 


43 


we  need  to  be  born  again  into  a  new  world 
wherein  dwelleth  collective  righteousness. 

Now,  some  men  will  say  that  new  birth 
into  a  new  world  can  only  mean  the  de¬ 
struction  of  the  present  order.  Such  ob¬ 
jection  forgets  that  I  am  talking  about 
birth,  which  is  a  natural  process,  preceded 
by  natural  processes  and  leading  out  to 
life  in  which  natural  processes  rule.  Births 
are  revolutionary  only  as  life  is  revolu¬ 
tionary.  Moreover,  Christian  birth  is  a 
birth  in  the  spirit.  Men  in  society  need 
to  be  born  into  a  new  spirit.  It  is  con¬ 
ceivable  that  in  particular  instances  birth 
into  a  new  spirit  which  makes  possible 
better  living  together  may  not  involve  any 
inevitable  change  in  what  this  or  that 
man  does.  A  fisherman  born  by  conver¬ 
sion  into  the  kingdom  of  God  does  not 
necessarily  cease  to  be  a  fisherman.  He 
ceases  to  be  selfish,  or  cynical,  or  dishonest. 
A  new  spirit  henceforth  pervades  all  that 
he  does.  The  change  is  at  bottom  in  the 
realm  of  spirit,  both  with  individuals  and 
with  groups. 

We  must  be  born  again.  Even  if  the 
present  social  and  political  and  interna- 


44 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


tional  order  is  all  that  its  advocates  claim 
for  it,  we  need  a  new  birth  into  the  Divine 
Spirit  if  we  are  to  live  together  as  Chris¬ 
tians.  If  social  systems  are  not  all  that 
their  advocates  claim  for  them,  the  neces¬ 
sary  changes  can  best  be  made  by  those 
who  have  been  born  into  newness  of  spirit. 
Industry,  politics,  governments  need  to  be 
converted,  born  again,  baptized  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  into  newness  of  spirit.  Men  in 
all  these  various  social  activities — no  mat¬ 
ter  how  high  their  attainments  in  personal 
character  in  the  narrower  individual  circles 
— need  to  give  heed  to  the  age-old  words 
of  invitation  to  the  Supper  of  the  Lord, 
namely,  that  all  those  who  are  in  love  and 
charity  with  their  neighbors  and  intend  to 
lead  a  new  life,  following  the  command¬ 
ments  of  God  and  walking  henceforth  in 
his  holy  ways,  should  draw  near  with  faith! 

When  Jesus  cried  out  in  heart-broken 
pity  over  the  Jerusalem  that  stoned  the 
prophets  and  that  turned  away  from  him 
who  would  shelter  her  children  against  the 
eagles  whose  shadows  were  already  falling 
around  them,  it  is  not  to  be  imagined  that 
he  was  thinking  of  unrelated  dwellers  in 


PRESUPPOSITIONS 


45 


Jerusalem,  a  census  of  separate  and  dis¬ 
tinct  individuals.  He  was  thinking  of  the 
dwellers  in  Jerusalem  in  the  relations  which 
filled  them  with  that  Jerusalem  spirit 
which  made  the  prophets’  lot  a  martyr¬ 
dom;  of  the  collective  blindness  which 
made  Jerusalem,  populated  as  it  was  with 
excellent,  well-meaning  individuals,  a  sym¬ 
bol  for  a  society  which  as  a  society  knew 
not  the  day  of  its  visitation. 

May  I  urge  again  that  reconciliation  of 
groups  must,  however,  always  come  back 
for  its  justification  to  the  enlarged  life  of 
the  individuals  in  the  group.  There  will 
always  be  something  of  a  paradox  here: 
the  more  real  the  reconciliation  the  more 
each  individual  will  stand  for  his  own 
point  of  view;  the  closer  men  come  to¬ 
gether  the  farther  they  will  be  apart;  the 
wider  the  range  of  their  group  interests  the 
more  they  will  think  of  the  persons  closest 
to  them.  If  reconciliation  means  that 
sentiment  for  humanity  in  general  is  to 
lessen  the  devotion  to  our  friends  and  rela¬ 
tives  and  neighbors,  we  care  not  for  it; 
but  it  does  not  mean  that.  It  provides  a 
basis  for  thoroughly  Christian  respect  and 


46 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


cooperation  among  men,  but  it  does  not 
mean  that  we  are  all  to  dabble  in  one 
another’s  business,  or  to  think  thoughts 
that  have  everybody’s  sanction,  or  to  love 
everybody  alike  in  the  affectional  sense. 
We  do  not  have  to  make  the  world  inane 
to  make  it  Christian. 

To  sum  up:  Enterprises  looking  toward 
genuinely  Christian  living  together,  espe¬ 
cially  on  the  part  of  social  groups,  must 
keep  in  mind  the  absoluteness  of  human 
values,  the  relativity,  so  to  speak,  of  human 
beings  in  native  endowment  and  develop¬ 
ment,  the  need  of  absorption  in  various 
forms  of  cooperation  which  reveal  the 
powers  of  individual  men  to  themselves 
and  to  one  another. 


II 

IS  CHURCH  UNITY  POSSIBLE? 

The  church  of  the  present  day  no  sooner 
fares  forth  to  teach  men,  as  members  of  a 
society  split  up  into  diverse  and  opposed 
classes,  nations,  and  races,  the  art  of  living 
together,  than  the  critic  cries  out:  “Set 
your  own  house  in  order.  Religious  groups 
have  been  the  most  quarrelsome  groups  in 
history.  Religious  debates  have  been  more 
bitterly  argued,  religious  wars  more  des¬ 
perately  fought,  religious  persecution  more 
unrelentingly  pursued  than  any  other  de¬ 
bates  or  wars  or  persecutions.  To-day  the 
organized  Christianity  which  preaches  peace 
to  the  world  is  deeply  cleft  into  hostile 
segments.” 

If  the  church  is  to  do  its  part  in  helping 
men  to  live  together,  she  will  surely  have 
to  heed  and  deal  with  this  criticism.  It 
does  not  quite  meet  the  case  to  say  that 
the  criticism  is  overdrawn.  Most  critics  of 
the  church  are  indeed  out  of  touch  with 

47 


48 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


present  day  organized  Christianity.  It  is 
simply  not  true  that  religious  organizations 
are  fighting  among  themselves.  Still,  we 
must  admit  that  there  is  not  anything 
which  makes  clear  to  the  ordinary  observer 
outside  of  the  church  the  extent  to  which 
the  various  religious  groups  are  succeeding 
in  living  together.  We  must  pull  the 
agreements  among  the  religious  groups  into 
full  view,  not  only  for  the  enlightenment 
of  the  outsider  but  for  the  encouragement 
of  ourselves. 

We  may  well  be  thankful  that  there  are 
some  general  forces  which  to-day  are  bring¬ 
ing  the  religious  groups  together.  First, 
and  probably  least  important  of  all,  is  the 
emphasis  on  efficiency  coming  out  of  a 
time  which  talks  much  of  results.  Money 
is  being  wastefully  spent  in  needless  re¬ 
duplication  of  ecclesiastical  and  humani¬ 
tarian  effort.  The  objection  is  not  that  too 
much  is  being  spent,  but  that  it  is  being 
spent  wrongfully.  Again,  the  pressing  so¬ 
cial  questions  of  our  time  cannot  be  at¬ 
tacked  successfully  by  religious  groups 
working  separately.  Social  advance  comes 
out  of  changes  in  the  social  climate,  and 


IS  CHURCH  UNITY  POSSIBLE?  49 


climate  must  be  more  than  what  a  wag 
called  the  climate  of  New  England,  a  mere 
assortment  of  weathers.  Again,  the  Great 
War  has  left  Christianity  badly  discounted 
before  the  so-called  non-Christian  nations. 

If  its  missionary  enterprise  is  to  succeed  as 
it  should,  the  religious  groups  must  so  get 
together  and  work  together  as  not  to  sug¬ 
gest  to  the  non-Christian  mind  the  thought  • 
of  schism  in  Christianity.  The  sheer  peril 
of  failure  confronting  Christianity  makes 
for  church  unity. 

There  are  other  and  deeper  forces  mak¬ 
ing  for  close  friendliness.  Think  of  the 
increasingly  general  agreement  that,  after 
all,  the  test  of  Christianity  is  the  kind  of 
life  it  produces.  A  good  deal  has  been 
made  of  the  deplorable  ignorance  of  Amer¬ 
ican  youth  concerning  the  fundamentals  of 
Christianity  as  that  ignorance  was  revealed 
by  examination  of  the  millions  of  young 
men  who  enrolled  in  training  for  the  Great 
War.  There  was,  indeed,  dense  ignorance 
of  the  so-called  doctrinal  aspects  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  and  of  the  meaning  of  ecclesiastical 
differences,  but  there  was  surprising  recog¬ 
nition  of  the  fact  that  Christians  are  sup- 


50 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


posed  to  act  like  Christ;  not  that  there 
was  ever  a  formal  definition  of  what  being 
like  Christ  is,  but  the  standard  was  there 
nevertheless,  and  by  that  standard  men 
were  judged.  The  church  has  this  to  her 
outstanding  credit,  that,  in  spite  of  all  her 
faults,  she  has  driven  into  the  common 
consciousness  the  understanding  that  Chris¬ 
tianity  is  likeness  to  Christ  for  men — and 
for  God  too  for  that  matter. 

There  is  common  recognition  that  Chris¬ 
tianity  means  likeness  to  Christ.  The 
church,  then,  becomes  a  group  of  people  at 
least  seeking  to  serve  the  Christlike  God  by 
living  the  Christlike  life.  If  this  is  true, 
the  church  as  an  organization  of  persons  is 
the  fundamental  fact,  and  the  church  on 
the  organizational  side,  the  side  of  doc¬ 
trinal  statement  and  organizational  law,  is 
instrumental.  All  these  secondary  features 
have  to  meet  the  Master’s  own  test,  “By 
their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them.”  The 
doctrine,  or  the  ritual,  or  the  church  code 
of  laws,  is  the  food  upon  which  the  Chris¬ 
tian  lives,  or  the  house  in  which  he  dwells, 
or  the  garment  which  keeps  him  warm,  or 
the  weapon  with  which  he  fights,  or  the 


IS  CHURCH  UNITY  POSSIBLE?  51 


tool  with  which  he  builds.  All  these  go 
for  final  justification  to  the  life  of  persons 
which  they  foster. 

This  is  not  to  disparage  the  instruments 
of  religious  life  or  the  means  of  grace.  As 
instruments  they  are  of  immense  import¬ 
ance.  We  must  not  look  on  them  as  utterly 
essential  to  the  life  of  the  church,  but 
essential  as  ministers  to  that  life.  We 
have  high  authority  for  saying  that  the 
life  is  more  than  meat  and  the  body  more 
than  raiment,  but  the  more  important  the 
life  the  more  important  the  meat  and  the 
raiment.  The  phrasing  of  doctrinal  state¬ 
ment  takes  on  new  significance  when  it  is 
seen  to  be  as  important  as  food  or  tool. 

It  is  from  this  point  of  view  that  the 
study  of  doctrine  must  be  approached,  and 
only  a  flippant  or  shallow  mind  will  ap¬ 
proach  even  doctrines  which  are  no  longer 
important  with  careless  or  jaunty  step. 
A  doctrine  means  for  its  time  food  or  rai¬ 
ment  or  sword.  It  must  be  understood  in 
connection  with  its  time.  The  older  cree- 
dal  statements,  no  matter  how  positive 
their  terms,  do  not  all  carry  with  them 
now  the  power  to  convince  us  that  they  are 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


absolute  truth  valid  from  the  point  of 
view  of  the  Absolute.  They  were  orig¬ 
inally  statements  in  response  to  great 
popular  demands,  as  the  church  met  this 
or  that  particular  crisis.  How  trifling  the 
debate  over  Arianism  seems  to  us  now! 
The  historians  are  probably  right  never¬ 
theless  who  tell  us  that  the  whole  history 
of  Christianity  and  the  whole  future  of 
Christianity  were  involved  in  the  debate. 
It  at  bottom  seems  to  have  been  a  ques¬ 
tion  as  to  the  supremacy  of  Christ  in 
the  life  of  the  time.  We  debate  the 
same  question,  but  in  entirely  different 
terms. 

Put  in  this  fashion,  the  problem  as  to 
religious  argument  changes.  We  are  in¬ 
deed  debating  to  get  as  near  the  truth  as 
we  can,  only  the  truth  is  not  truth  just  by 
itself.  It  is  truth  with  a  reference  to  vital 
spiritual  needs.  The  question  is  as  to  what 
will  happen  to  the  man  who  puts  on  this 
truth  as  a  garment,  or  lives  in  it,  or  tabes 
it  as  food,  or  starts  out  to  build  a  new  life 
with  it.  Theology  is  well  worth  debating 
over,  but  always  with  that  human  aim  in 
view.  Its  value  is  not  absolute.  The 


IS  CHURCH  UNITY  POSSIBLE?  53 


absolute  value  belongs  to  the  people  to 
whom  it  is  to  minister. 

I  would  not  keep  too  close  to  a  merely 
utilitarian  plane.  The  ministry  of  doctrine 
is  not  as  prosaic  or  coarse  as  some  of  my 
expressions  may  have  implied.  The  mediae¬ 
val  theologies  have  as  companion  master¬ 
pieces  the  mediaeval  cathedrals.  Think  for 
a  moment  of  the  cathedral  as  the  expres¬ 
sion  of  the  religious  spirit  of  the  Middle 
Ages.  It  was  a  place  of  meeting  for  all  the 
people  of  a  village  or  town  or  city  when 
they  gave  themselves  to  the  worship  of 
God.  We  marvel  at  the  architectural  skill 
of  the  building  itself,  which  fitted  it  to  its 
purpose.  The  old  Romanesque  churches 
lacked  light.  Their  walls  had  to  be  so 
massive  to  carry  the  stone  roofs  that  only 
small  openings  could  be  left  for  the  light. 
Interiors  were  dark,  and  the  church  called 
for  more  light.  Then  by  a  miracle  of 
builders’  skill  the  architects  found  a  way 
to  centralize  the  weight  of  the  stone  roof 
by  ribs  carried  to  mighty  pillars  or  columns 
reenforced  by  buttresses,  the  weight  some¬ 
times  being  carried  over  a  side  aisle  by  a 
flying  buttress.  Next  the  walls  were 


54 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


opened  for  the  marvelous  windows  and  the 
gorgeously  colored  light  streamed  in.  The 
world  of  architecture  has  never  seen  a 
more  complete  solution  of  a  substantially 
religious  problem  set  by  a  given  time  than 
that  of  the  Gothic  cathedral. 

Now,  I  must  not  stop  here.  The  minis¬ 
try  of  the  cathedral  did  not  stop  short  at 
supplying  a  meeting  place  for  mediaeval 
worshipers.  It  not  only  served  the  more 
prosaic  needs  of  the  people,  but  it  also  fed 
their  souls  through  the  revelation  of  an  in¬ 
expressible  beauty — and  feeds  souls  to-day. 

I  stand  by  a  French  cathedral.  Do  I 
raise  question  as  to  the  fitness  of  the  cathe¬ 
dral  merely  as  a  meeting  place?  Do  I 
complain  that  acoustic  properties  are  not 
perfect,  that  there  is  no  place  for  com¬ 
mittee  or  church  activities  so  dear  to  the 
modern  parish?  No.  While  conceding 
that  a  church  building  reproducing  the  full 
Gothic  proportions  and  qualities  would 
hardly  be  built  to-day,  I  nevertheless  sit 
speechless  in  the  cathedral  over  a  beauty 
which  builds  upon  stone  till  the  stone  it¬ 
self  seems  suffused  with  a  timeless  spiritual 
quality. 


IS  CHURCH  UNITY  POSSIBLE?  55 


So  it  is  with  the  doctrinal  statements  of 
other  days.  Augustine  and  Anselm  could 
not  write,  if  they  were  here  to-day,  in  the 
terms  with  which  in  their  day  they  led  the 
thinking  of  the  church.  The  Nicene  state¬ 
ment  comes  of  the  age  in  which  it  was 
written.  Yet  many  a  mind,  alert  even  to 
the  newest  statement  of  the  truth,  finds  in 
the  Nicene  phrase  something  that  minis¬ 
ters  to  his  sense  of  the  greatness  of  God 
in  Christ.  We  judge  the  creed  by  the  reli¬ 
gious  impact  which  it  makes  upon  us. 

This  recognition  of  the  life  in  Christ  as 
the  main  factor,  of  the  community  of 
Christians  as  the  end  in  itself,  makes 
powerfully  for  the  closer  approach  of 
Christian  groups  to  one  another.  Let 
every  man  find  Christ,  but  let  him  find 
him  in  his  own  way.  Let  him  make  his 
closest  associates,  if  he  chooses,  among 
those  like-minded  with  himself.  A  man’s 
essential  creed  is  the  creed  upon  which 
he  lives  and  which  in  turn  comes  out  of 
his  own  life. 

If  we  but  look  at  doctrinal  statements  in 
this  vital  way,  we  shall  find  the  solution 
to  some  formal  contradictions  which  look 


56 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


formidable  on  paper.  We  all  know  how 
propositions  which  are  formally  incon¬ 
sistent  with  one  another  solve  themselves, 
or,  at  least,  get  along  together,  in  our 
personal  experience.  The  age-old  contra¬ 
dictions  between  the  one  and  the  many, 
between  fixity  and  change,  come  nearest  to 
solution  in  a  life  which  knows  itself  to  be 
one  over  against  many,  and  which  knows 
itself  to  be  the  same  in  the  midst  of  change. 
So  with  the  old,  old  debate  as  to  free  will 
and  divine  decree.  The  paradox  is  no¬ 
where  more  strongly  put  than  in  that 
scriptural  passage  which  tells  us  to  work 
out  our  own  salvation,  for  it  is  God  that 
worketh  in  us  both  to  will  and  to  do  of  his 
own  good  pleasure.  Moreover,  our  wills 
are  ours  to  make  them  his! 

There  is  danger,  by  the  way,  in  over- 
haste  to  reconcile  theological  contradic¬ 
tions.  Maybe  the  contradiction  cannot  be 
formally  removed  without  doing  harm  to 
the  truth  stated  in  life  terms,  and  it  is 
with  life  terms  that  we  are  dealing.  Even 
in  the  formal  sense  some  contradictions 
are  fruitful  forces  working  for  the  progress 
of  thought,  forever  insoluble  and  yet  for- 


IS  CHURCH  UNITY  POSSIBLE?  57 


ever  provoking  to  fresh  revelation  of  the 
Truth. 

Is  this  recognition  that  the  church  deals 
primarily  with  the  life  of  Christ  in  groups 
of  his  followers  likely  to  bring  us  to  some 
organization  that  will  itself  be  a  visible 
sign  of  the  unity  to  which  Christians  are 
coming?  Some  such  unity  will  surely  come 
if  the  groups  of  Christians  keep  in  mind 
two  primary  human  characteristics  never 
more  clearly  manifest  than  in  social  groups 
to-day — the  desire  for  preservation  of  what¬ 
ever  is  spiritually  distinctive  in  the  sep¬ 
arate  group  lives  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
desire  for  closer  fellowship  with  all  bodies 
of  Christians  on  the  other.  I  do  not  think 
this  unity  will  ever  come  by  any  artificially 
efficient  leveling  process.  We  need  the 
richness  and  fullness  of  variety  and  diver¬ 
sity  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  one 
force  that  will  at  last  bring  us  together  will 
be  a  whole-hearted  desire  to  spread  the 
life  of  Christ  among  men.  The  one  bond 
that  will  hold  us  together  will  be  this 
desire  joined  to  frank  recognition  of  the 
legitimacy  of  all  honest  methods  of  seek¬ 
ing  to  further  that  main  purpose. 


58 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


In  my  Father’s  house  are  many  man¬ 
sions!  Suppose  we  think  of  the  church  on 
earth  as  the  vast  home  of  the  Father’s 
children.  Union  would  then  mean  living 
under  the  same  roof  as  members  of  the 
Father’s  household.  The  rooms  might  be 
different.  One  might  seem  like  a  work¬ 
shop,  another  like  a  library,  another  like 
an  art  gallery,  another  like  a  debating 
room,  another  like  a  social  hall.  There 
would  be  as  many  rooms  as  there  are 
broad  and  general  human  types,  for  all 
these  diversities  have  to  be  preserved  for 
the  sake  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

Union  is  not  helped  on  so  much  by  the 
man  who  slackens  his  zeal  for  his  religious 
group  in  the  name  of  a  loyalty  for  a  general 
church,  as  by  the  man  who  seeks  to  make 
his  group  contribute  distinctively  to  the 
Christian  ideal  at  the  same  time  that  he 
increases  his  respect  for  all  others  in  like 
groups  who  are  working  with  a  like  aim. 
Paradoxical  as  it  may  sound,  the  man  who 
is  whole-heartedly  loyal  to  his  own  group 
makes  that  group  of  such  consequence 
everywhere  that  all  other  groups  will  de¬ 
sire  union  with  it.  Not  every  suitor  wins 


IS  CHURCH  UNITY  POSSIBLE?  59 


his  lady’s  love  by  furiously  definite  and 
specific  iteration  of  proposal  for  union. 
The  most  successful  unions  seem  to  come 
as  each  party  to  the  union  makes  himself 
or  herself  worth  having  on  his  or  her  own 
account. 

Let  us  return  again  and  again  to  the 
demand  for  diversity  in  the  divine  king¬ 
dom.  Marriage  itself  is  aimed  not  to  make 
men  to  resemble  women  or  women  to 
resemble  men.  Marriage  in  the  true  sense 
makes  men  more  masculine  and  women 
more  feminine.  On  the  basis  of  the  most 
thorough  merging  of  two  lives  each  stands 
out  at  the  end  more  distinct  on  its  own 
account.  Political  unions,  of  the  right  sort, 
by  making  possible  a  sharing  of  effort  that 
can  be  shared,  have  left  the  separate  units 
free  to  follow  their  own  impulses  in  their 
own  affairs.  Suppose  all  the  States  in  the 
American  Union  were  entirely  independent 
of  one  another.  We  should  then  have  over 
forty  little  standing  armies,  forty  lines  of 
custom  houses,  forty  little  national  gov¬ 
ernments.  The  chief  waste  then  would  be 
in  the  diversion  of  effort  from  the  things 
the  people  of  the  separate  States  could  best 


60 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


do  separately.  It  is  one  of  the  possibilities 
of  the  American  system  that  each  State 
has  some  room  for  distinctive  political  ex¬ 
periment  on  its  own  account.  So  with  reli¬ 
gious  groups.  If  they  could  get  near 
enough  together  to  feel  oneness  at  the 
same  time  that  each  tried  to  make  its  dis¬ 
tinctive  contribution,  we  would  have  the 
ideal  religious  society. 

The  differences  between  bodies  of  Chris¬ 
tians  who  have  come  close  enough  together 
to  feel  a  common  loyalty  to  Christ  are  not 
so  much  formal  and  creedal  as  tempera¬ 
mental.  Men  feel  a  lack  of  something 
once  they  find  themselves  outside  of  their 
own  group.  They  do  not  feel  at  home.  If 
we  are  to  deal  with  the  church  as  a  union 
of  groups  of  human  beings,  we  must  not 
neglect  the  importance  of  this  feeling.  We 
shall  have  to  leave  large  liberty  to  men  to 
do  as  they  please  and  to  find  their  way 
about  in  the  Church  of  God.  Let  no  man 
smile  with  any  trace  of  superiority  over 
the  way  another  man — his  brother — seizes 
life  for  his  soul.  A  dear  friend  of  mine 
used  to  find  comfort  in  repeating  ritualistic 
phrases  that  meant  nothing  to  me.  I  won- 


IS  CHURCH  UNITY  POSSIBLE?  61 


dered  at  the  strength  they  brought  to  him, 
until  I  remembered  that  they  were  on  his 
father’s  lips  in  the  instruction  of  a  happy 
childhood  home  and  that  his  mother  re¬ 
peated  them  as  she  died.  If  I  am  at  hand 
when  the  new  day  of  a  united  church 
comes,  I  hope  that  church  will  be  of  such  a 
nature  that  I  can  be  a  Quaker  in  some 
moods,  sitting  silent  to  await  the  stirrings 
of  the  Spirit,  and  a  ritualist  in  other  moods, 
entering  into  a  subtle  communion  with  the 
souls  of  the  past  through  the  use  of  words 
dear  to  that  past,  and  a  crusader  rejoicing 
in  Christian  conquest  in  other  moods  still, 
listening  to  stories  of  gains  in  great  cities 
or  in  far  away  mission  fields. 

Will  such  a  glad  day  of  union  ever  come? 
Why  not?  If  we  will  continue  to  work 
together,  to  talk  together,  to  pray  to¬ 
gether,  it  will  some  day  come  as  easily  and 
naturally  as  the  ripening  of  an  orchard’s 
fruit.  It  will  be  upon  us  before  we  know 
it.  The  fruit  must  indeed  not  be  plucked 
too  soon,  but  the  greater  danger  is  in 
plucking  it  not  soon  enough.  It  is  not 
wise  husbandry  which  allows  apples  to  fall 
from  the  trees.  Changing  the  figure  of 


62 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


speech,  union  of  churches  is  like  marriage. 
Premature  marriage  is  perilous,  but  wise 
lovers  do  not  expect  to  settle  everything 
before  the  wedding.  By  the  fact  that  the 
two  are  married  some  agreements  are  nat¬ 
urally  and  easily  reached  which  might  be 
cause  for  endless  debate  before  marriage. 

The  critic  is  not  yet  through  with  us, 
however.  He  tells  us  that  even  after  such 
a  new  day  has  dawned  there  are  possibili¬ 
ties  of  quarrel  and  split  in  the  church.  He 
calls  our  attention  to  that  warfare  between 
radicals  and  conservatives  which  has  al¬ 
ways  led  to  schisms  in  churches  and  which 
is  especially  grievous  in  some  American 
religious  groups  to-day.  Is  not  this  dif¬ 
ference  fundamental  and  inherent?  Can 
the  church  ever  present  a  peaceful  front 
with  this  deep-seated  human  belligerency 
still  marking  the  lives  of  church  members? 
Meeting  this  question  with  the  frankness 
it  deserves,  I  do  not  see  how  we  are  ever 
to  have  a  united  church  except  upon  the 
basis  of  a  recognition  of  the  place  of  both 
radical  and  conservative.  It  has  been 
said  that  the  test  of  the  worth  of  a  social¬ 
istic  state,  assuming  one  to  come,  would 


IS  CHURCH  UNITY  POSSIBLE?  6S 


be  its  willingness  to  have  socialism  pub- 
licly  criticized.  Would  the  state-owned 
press,  for  example,  of  a  socialistic  state  be 
willing  to  print  a  book  criticizing  the  so¬ 
cialistic  state?  When  there  is  one  church, 
will  that  one  church  allow  the  preaching  of 
beliefs  offensive  to  the  majority  of  the 
church?  Will  the  conservatives  call  radi¬ 
cals  traitors  and  will  the  radicals  retaliate 
by  calling  the  conservatives  mossbacks? 
That  is  the  unfortunate  terminology  which 
the  outside  world  hears  to-day  as  it  turns 
toward  the  church. 

All  this  must  be  kept  on  the  human 
basis,  and  upon  the  platform  of  respect 
for  every  man  who  is  seeking  to  live  in  the 
spirit  of  Christ.  It  is  not  to  be  assumed 
that  any  man  who  has  taken  on  himself 
the  vows  of  Christ  will  lightly  violate 
those  vows.  By  an  odd  chain  of  circum¬ 
stances  my  life  in  the  Methodist  ministry 
has  brought  me  into  close  touch  with  the 
three  or  four  Methodists  in  my  day  who 
have  been  called  heretics.  The  sobering 
reflection  that  comes  to  me  when  I  am 
tempted  to  call  anybody  a  heretic  is  that 
these  three  or  four  men  are  those  whose 


64 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


memory  I  most  cherish  for  the  sheer  saint¬ 
liness  of  their  lives.  It  is  a  wise  provision 
in  some  ecclesiastical  bodies  which  pro¬ 
vides  that  a  minister  charged  with  heresy 
can  be  tried  only  by  a  group  of  fellow 
ministers  to  whose  circle  he  immediately 
belongs.  We  cannot  judge  heretics  apart 
from  their  lives.  A  church  that  names  the 
name  of  Christ  does  not  have  the  privilege 
of  a  club  or  a  party  to  cast  out  those  whom 
she  disapproves.  The  worst  calamity  which 
could  befall  a  church  would  be  to  vote  so 
as  to  make  the  Christ-life  practically  a 
heresy. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  conservative 
serves  the  kingdom  of  heaven  by  holding 
forth  as  long  as  he  can  a  view  that  may 
be  passing  away.  If  we  are  to  judge  be¬ 
liefs  by  their  usefulness,  a  belief  may  be 
useful  long  after  masses  of  men  have 
ceased  to  believe  in  it.  It  may  still  min¬ 
ister  to  some.  In  any  case  it  may  be 
presented  with  such  force  that  the  essen¬ 
tial  truth  in  it  is  made  to  count.  By  op¬ 
posing  the  old  to  the  new  the  conservative 
slows  down  the  rush  of  a  new  idea,  gives 
the  church  time  to  make  its  adjustment, 


IS  CHURCH  UNITY  POSSIBLE?  65 


compels  the  new  forces  to  take  the  old 
force  into  itself,  with  a  change  of  direction 
quite  likely  closer  to  the  truth.  If  we  can 
make  place  in  the  church  to-day  for  rad¬ 
icals  and  conservatives  to  live  together  in 
good  will  though  in  wide  intellectual  dis¬ 
agreement,  we  shall  have  set  before  the 
world,  puzzled  as  to  how  men  can  live 
together,  an  object  lesson  in  living  together 
of  value  for  all  social  groups,  industrial, 
national,  and  racial. 


All  this  is  so  general  that  we  can  rightly 
be  expected  to  come  to  closer  grips  with 
the  question  of  radicalism  and  conserva¬ 
tism  in  the  churches.  Let  us  not  dodge 
the  issue,  as  so  many  to-day  are  doing,  by 
falling  back  upon  a  policy  of  silence  con¬ 
cerning  creedal  or  doctrinal  questions.  We 
must  agree  that  formal  doctrinal  matters 
are  secondary — that  the  important  consid¬ 
eration  is  the  type  of  life  that  follows  the 
use  of  a  doctrine.  This  does  not  mean,  I 
repeat,  that  doctrines  are  not  worth  talk¬ 
ing  about.  Their  instrumental  nature 
makes  them  all  the  more  worth  talking 
about.  If  they  were  absolute  truths,  final 


66 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


for  all  time,  we  might  say  that  they  were 
to  be  discussed  only  for  purposes  of  under¬ 
standing  and  interpretation.  There  would 
be  a  limit  to  the  discussion.  It  is  not  so 
with  a  doctrine  which  is  spiritual  food  or 
raiment  or  tool.  We  seek  to  make  the 
food  more  nutritious  or  palatable,  the  rai¬ 
ment  warmer  and  better  fitting,  the  tool 
sharper-edged  by  grinding  it  in  discussion. 
The  material  progress  of  civilization  meas¬ 
urably  depends  on  finding  better  and  better 
ways  of  cooking  food  and  cutting  garments 
and  fashioning  tools.  So  it  is  also  in  the 
shaping  of  instrumental  statements  of  re¬ 
ligious  truths.  These  should  be  brought 
forth  for  fullest  discussion  for  the  sake  of 
their  greater  serviceableness. 

The  advice  is  often  given  to  young  min¬ 
isters  not  to  bring  creedal  or  critical  con¬ 
troversies  into  the  pulpit.  I  have  myself 
often  given  this  advice.  I  have  never 
meant,  however,  that  these  matters  should 
not  be  brought  into  the  church.  The 
preaching  service  should  indeed  be  re¬ 
served,  I  think,  for  the  application  of 
religious  truth  to  conduct — or  to  the  in¬ 
spiration  of  the  life,  or  to  the  appeal  for 


IS  CHURCH  UNITY  POSSIBLE?  67 


the  surrender  of  the  will  to  the  rule  of 
God.  There  should,  however,  be  definite 
place  for  the  discussion  of  theological  and 
social  issues.  The  charge  can  be  made 
with  pertinence  and  force  that  young 
preachers  just  coming  out  of  theological 
school  to-day  follow  one  of  two  courses: 
they  either  lug  the  instruments  by  which 
newer  views  are  arrived  at  into  the  pulpit, 
where  there  is  little  chance  to  guard  them 
against  possible  misunderstandings,  or  they 
keep  silent  about  these  newer  methods  of 
approach  altogether.  In  the  one  case  the 
preacher  is  apt,  sooner  or  later,  to  put  on 
spiritual  airs  because  of  what  he  conceives 
of  as  his  persecution  as  a  martyr;  in  the 
other  case  he  may  pride  himself  on  the 
fact  that  he  is  far  advanced  in  his  thinking 
without  the  people  finding  it  out.  Both 
courses  are  equally  mistaken.  The  pulpit 
is  not  the  place  for  controversial  doctrinal 
discussion;  but  there  should  be  abundant 
opportunity  for  such  discussion  in  classes 
where  the  leader  gives  the  best  that  is  in 
him,  with  opportunity  for  questions  from 
the  class.  Through  the  neglect  of  such 
discussion  many  churches  now  find  them- 


68 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


selves  in  a  deplorable  plight,  with  a  laity 
untaught  by  the  church,  part  of  the  laity 
falling  back  on  the  outworn  theology  of 
their  childhood,  and  part  following  after 
newspaper  and  magazine  and  storybook 
phrasings  of  alleged  newer  truth.  As  for 
the  discussion  of  social  themes,  these  are 
best  handled  where  there  is  most  ample 
room  for  questions  from  the  floor.  It  sets 
the  right  example  before  a  society  broken 
up  into  classes  to  behold  the  spectacle  of  a 
church  ready,  through  its  spokesmen,  to 
meet  and  attempt  to  answer  any  questions 
which  the  man  inside  or  outside  wants 
answered,  provided  there  is  no  attempt  on 
the  part  of  the  church  to  say  in  oracular 
fashion  just  what  men  must  believe,  or  to 
lay  claim  to  positive  knowledge  beyond 
reach.  Fundamental  respect  for  the  ques¬ 
tioner,  fundamental  respect  for  difference 
of  opinion,  fundamental  loyalty  to  the 
highest  and  best  for  men — these  are  the 
essentials  of  a  church  which  is  to  form  a 
rallying  point  for  the  puzzled  inquirers  of 
our  day.  The  church  must  make  men  see 
that  she  is  utterly  honest. 

Now  the  questions  begin  to  come  upon 


IS  CHURCH  UNITY  POSSIBLE?  69 


us  thick  and  fast.  What  is  ecclesiastical 
honesty?  Well,  honesty  in  public  utter¬ 
ance  is  the  aim  to  tell  the  people  what  one 
actually  has  in  mind.  If  a  man  gives  the 
impression  that  he  is  conservative — in  the 
ordinary  use  of  the  term — when  he  is  talking 
radicalism,  we  may  well  question  his  hon¬ 
esty,  If  he  gives  the  impression  of  radical¬ 
ism  when  he  is  inwardly  conservative  we 
may  likewise  raise  questions  as  to  his 
honesty.  Telling  the  truth  is  not  just 
uttering  words  for  our  own  sake.  It  is, 
indeed,  permissible  for  a  writer  of  books  to 
state  truth  in  terms  that  best  suit  himself. 
The  printed  page  is  before  the  reader,  who 
has  time  to  ponder  over  the  book,  to  read 
and  to  re-read.  Not  so  with  the  preacher 
or  teacher.  He  is  speaking  with  the  aim 
of  begetting  understanding  in  the  mind  of 
the  hearer.  There  are  limits  to  all  such 
understanding,  but  it  is  the  business  of  the 
leader  of  religious  thinking  to  do  all  he 
can  to  make  himself  understood. 

In  this  realm  of  religious  discussion  we 
cannot  but  be  struck  by  the  fact  that  de¬ 
baters  do  not  always  join  issues,  that  they 
are  wrangling  about  different  problems, 


70 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


that  terms  do  not  mean  the  same  idea  to 
both  sides,  that  apparently  explicit  state¬ 
ments  often  mislead. 

To  take  a  single  instance.  One  debate 
before  the  church  in  our  time  has  to  do 
with  the  virgin  birth.  At  first  glance  it 
looks  as  if  the  only  way  to  answer  the 
question:  “Do  you  believe  in  the  virgin 
birth ?”  is  by  a  plain  yes  or  no.  More  than 
that  would  seem  to  come  of  evil.  There 
was  or  there  was  not  a  virgin  birth.  Jesus 
was  born  in  that  manner  or  he  was  not. 
So  in  plain  honesty  we  have  a  right  to  call 
on  the  leader  of  the  church  to  answer  yes 
or  no. 

Not  so  fast,  please.  That  might  do  in  a 
court  of  law  where  the  sole  aim  is  to  estab¬ 
lish  an  objective  fact,  but  there  is  a  dif¬ 
ference  when  we  are  in  the  realm  of 
religious  discussion.  In  that  realm  “virgin 
birth”  means  more  than  an  objective  fact. 
Through  long  years  of  doctrinal  debate 
certain  implications  have  become  almost 
inseparable  from  the  term.  So  that  when 
the  theologian  is  asked  to  answer  yes  or 
no  he  may  hesitate,  not  because  he  is  dis¬ 
honest  but  because  he  is  honest.  He  does 


IS  CHURCH  UNITY  POSSIBLE?  71 


not  wish  to  give  a  false  impression  by  his 
yes  or  no.  He  sees  that  if  he  honestly  says 
yes,  he  is  thought  by  many  good  people  to 
be  taking  a  stand  on  a  theory  of  the  incar¬ 
nation  and  to  be  committing  himself  to 
one  particular  mode  of  incarnation.  If  he 
honestly  says  no,  he  is  thought  by  multi¬ 
tudes  of  surpassingly  good  people  to  be 
denying  the  divinity  or  deity  of  our  Lord 
— which  is  farthest  from  his  intention.  Of 
course,  he  must  not  say  yes  when  he  means 
no;  but  he  must  not  be  suspected  of  inner 
disloyalty  or  insincerity  when  he  hesitates, 
or,  as  a  legislator  would  say,  asks  for  “per¬ 
mission  to  explain  his  vote.”  Many  of  us 
have  never  had  any  particular  difficulty  in 
accepting  the  creedal  statement,  but  we 
have  accepted  it  because  the  statement 
seems  to  fit  harmoniously  into  the  unique¬ 
ness  of  a  work  like  that  of  the  incarnation. 
We  may  hold  a  conception  of  the  relation 
of  God  to  the  universe  which  does  not 
make  it  hard  for  us  to  accept  miracle,  if 
miracle  seems  worth  while.  Others,  just 
as  devoted  as  we  are,  think  of  miracle,  not 
as  impossible  because  impersonal  laws  rule 
everything,  but  improbable  because  the 


72 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


laws  are  expression  of  divine  wisdom  and 
are  not  to  be  set  aside. 

I  dwell  upon  this  matter  of  honesty  be¬ 
cause  I  believe  that  the  church  as  the 
agent  of  reconciliation  among  men  must  be 
entirely  honest  herself.  There  is  no  worthy 
reconciliation  except  on  a  basis  of  entire 
frankness.  Yet  I  know  that,  after  all  is 
said  and  done,  there  are  certain  phases  of 
religious  truth  that  seem  foolishness  to  the 
man  outside.  They  are  foolishness  as  a 
masterpiece  of  art  is  foolish  to  him  who 
has  no  artistic  sense;  foolishness  as  regard 
for  propriety  is  foolish  to  him  who  has  no 
feeling  of  propriety;  foolishness  as  moral 
revelation  of  the  finer  grades  is  foolish  to 
him  whose  morality  is  of  the  coarser,  more 
conventional  variety. 

What  are  now  the  essentials  of  the  task 
before  the  churches  in  which  all  can  unite 
on  a  basis  which  will  bring  them  into  the 
truest  fellowship?  May  I  say  at  the  out¬ 
set  that  the  preaching  of  a  positive  Chris¬ 
tianity  is  quite  likely  at  least  in  the 
beginning  to  deepen  the  divisions  between 
men.  The  effort  toward  the  reconciliation 
of  men  moves  often  through  such  definite 


IS  CHURCH  UNITY  POSSIBLE?  73 


and  dynamic  statement  of  the  truth  that 
it  may  force  men  to  take  opposing  sides. 
We  more  and  more  agree  that  Christianity 
is  Christ,  that  Christ  is  the  final  word 
about  God  and  about  men  and  about  the 
universe.  If  that  is  true,  how  can  we  put 
the  truth  so  as  not  to  cause  division? 
Christ  is  the  final  truth  about  men  in  all 
walks  of  life,  in  all  employments,  in  all 
nations,  in  all  races.  The  preaching  of 
such  a  Christ  is  bound  to  make  trouble. 

What  a  miserable  caricature  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  it  is  that  interprets  the  life  of  the 
church  in  terms  of  a  smiling,  happy,  social 
feast  in  which  everybody  is  having  a  good 
time!  This  weary  world  needs  good  times 
sadly  enough,  but  such  peace  is  not  quite 
the  peace  of  the  church.  The  church  is 
here  to  pose  hard  questions  to  herself  and 
to  the  wTorld.  Ought  the  human  beings 
about  whom  Christ  is  the  final  word  be 
treated  as  they  are  in  some  industrial,  na¬ 
tional,  and  racial  situations?  I  shall  say 
later  that  quite  possibly  the  church  can 
never  herself  solve  the  greater  questions 
by  expedients  of  her  own  devising,  but  if 
she  just  keeps  raising  the  question  inces- 


74 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


santly,  “Does  this,  or  that,  harmonize  with 
the  Christ-ideal  for  men?”  she  will  per¬ 
form  an  immense  social  service.  It  may 
well  be  that  some  forms  of  persecution  will 
follow  such  persistent  questioning,  but  per¬ 
secution  has  always  meant  cement  for  a 
united  church.  If  the  churches  together 
will  bear  witness  to  Christ,  first  by  raising 
the  questions  I  have  suggested,  I  repeat, 
the  world  will  soon  forget  the  divisions  of 
the  church  in  the  face  of  such  unity.  What 
was  the  value  of  the  Greeks  to  philosophy, 
taking  the  whole  course  of  the  world’s 
thinking  together?  In  that  the  Greeks 
formed  great  philosophical  systems?  That 
the  Greeks  framed  such  systems  we  all 
gratefully  acknowledge.  The  main  service 
of  the  Greeks,  however,  was  in  the  fact 
that  they  put  certain  questions  which  men 
have  been  debating  about  and  dividing 
about  ever  since.  So  likewise  the  glory  of 
the  church  is  that  she  puts  some  questions 
insistently  age  after  age.  She  should  be 
the  sharp,  divisive  questioner  of  every  age. 

A  sign  of  the  increasing  unity  of  the 
church  is  to  be  found  in  her  insisting  that 
her  questions  be  answered  now.  That  is 


IS  CHURCH  UNITY  POSSIBLE?  75 


to  say,  all  the  churches  are  alike  coming  to 
see  that  this  present  earth  is  the  place 
where  the  searching  questions  about  the 
realization  of  the  Christ-ideal  are  to  be 
answered.  God  be  thanked  for  the  hope 
of  immortality,  but  that  hope  is  not 
merely  a  solace  as  we  think  of  redressing  in 
another  life  the  wrongs  given  and  received 
here.  Immortality  implies  such  readjust¬ 
ment,  we  all  know,  but  immortality,  after 
all,  is  held  fast  to  as  a  sphere  for  the  un¬ 
folding  of  the  Christ-possibilities  in  men. 
That  unfolding  should  start  here.  Only 
those  can  be  trusted  in  a  redeemed  society 
in  another  life  who  are  willing  to  try  to 
redeem  society  here. 

The  Christian  ideal  of  a  redeemed  so¬ 
ciety  in  the  future  life  has  always  contained 
elements  which  nobody  could  preach  as  ap¬ 
plicable  on  earth  without  being  in  danger 
of  being  looked  upon  as  a  disturber  of  the 
public  order.  I  am  not  a  socialist,  but  I 
would  not  care  to  hear  any  preacher  tell 
me  that  there  is  to  be  any  considerable 
private  ownership  of  material  things  in  the 
immortal  life.  In  fact,  I  do  not  remember 
ever  to  have  heard  any  such  doctrine.  We 


76 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


all  concede  that  in  a  world  of  redeemed 
humanity  in  the  skies  there  would  not  be 
any  place  for  armies  or  for  compulsion  by 
force.  Well,  even  admitting  that  the 
heavenly  condition  is  a  long  way  off  from 
any  earthly  fulfillment — the  churches  are 
more  and  more  agreeing  that  the  sooner 
we  get  started  to  introduce  the  kingdom  of 
God  here  the  more  chance  there  is  of  hop¬ 
ing  for  a  worth-while  kingdom  of  God 
yonder. 

The  reader  will  see  that  I  am  keeping 
this  statement  general.  I  am  not  advo¬ 
cating  specific  and  detailed  reforms.  In  a 
later  chapter  I  shall  say  something  of  the 
limitations  of  the  church  in  putting  into 
effect  specific  reforms.  I  am  merely  try¬ 
ing  to  keep  the  attention  fast  on  those 
things  in  which  we  can  lose  ourselves,  and 
can  thus  find  ourselves  brought  more  and 
more  closely  together  almost  without  our 
being  aware  of  the  nearer  approach.  We 
can  raise  the  Christly  question,  we  can 
call  for  an  answer  here  and  now.  More 
than  that:  we  can,  without  yielding  any 
denominational  essentials,  insist  upon  the 


IS  CHURCH  UNITY  POSSIBLE?  77 


contrasts  between  the  Christ-method  and 
the  methods  of  this  world,  the  Christ- 
method  being  the  overcoming  of  evil  with 
good  by  the  sheer  attractiveness  of  the 
good. 

Contrast  the  first  is  that  between  the 
Christ-method  and  the  world’s  reliance  on 
force.  Everybody  concedes  the  imperfect 
nature  of  even  the  best  human  beings.  We 
may  admit  that  there  are  many  men  of 
such  predominantly  physical  nature  that 
all  they  seem  to  understand  is  a  physical 
contact.  We  are  not  asking  that  mun¬ 
dane  society  disband  the  police  force.  Still, 
we  do  not  hear  so  much  as  formerly  about 
the  potency  of  the  discipline  of  force  in 
the  family.  Nor  do  we  believe  that  cor¬ 
poral  punishment  helps  slow  minds  in  the 
schools  to  quicken  their  pace.  I  remember 
a  well-meaning  teacher  who  once  shook  me, 
for  some  stupidity,  so  hard  that  for  half  a 
day  every  object  before  my  eyes  had  a 
hazy,  fuzzy  edge.  I  have  never  felt  that 
her  method  helped  to  sharpness  of  discern¬ 
ment,  no  matter  how  just  the  punishment 
so  far  as  my  deserts  were  concerned. 
Again,  we  have  seen  the  emphasis  in  the 


is 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


treatment  of  prisoners  tend  away  from 
force.  Without  saying  how  far  the  move¬ 
ment  against  the  control  of  human  beings 
by  force  should  go,  is  it  not  clear  that 
churches  can  stand  together  for  the  teach¬ 
ing  of  Jesus  as  to  the  true  method  of  con¬ 
trolling  men?  The  conquest  of  war,  we 
repeatedly  insist,  is  the  immediate  task  of 
present-day  Christianity.  War  is  a  form 
of  materialistic  atheism — the  common  foe 
of  all  beliefs  in  God. 

Secondly,  the  churches  should  stand  to¬ 
gether  against  the  spiritually  harmful  com¬ 
pulsions  which  come  out  of  the  pressure  of 
economic  or  financial  powers.  I  am  not 
now  speaking  directly  of  what  the  radical 
calls  “wage-slavery,”  but  of  the  extent  to 
which  fear  of  loss  of  financial  support  will 
affect  the  preaching  and  teaching  of  the 
church.  Preaching  and  teaching  mean 
training  of  preachers  and  teachers,  and 
such  training  is  expensive.  The  church 
must  have  money,  but  must  never  yield  to 
the  dictates  of  the  givers  of  money.  I 
gladly  admit  that  the  possibility  of  the 
control  of  teaching  especially  by  the 
wishes  of  donors  is  often  overstated.  Mr. 


IS  CHURCH  UNITY  POSSIBLE?  79 


Bertrand  Russell  recently  averred  that 
such  colleges  and  universities  in  x\merica 
as  have  received  money  from  the  Standard 
Oil  Company  can  be  looked  upon  as  in  the 
pay  of  that  company,  and  that  they  can 
be  depended  upon  never  to  say  anything 
inimical  to  Standard-Oil  interests.  This 
statement  partakes  of  Russelhs  character¬ 
istic  fondness  for  the  extreme.  The  Uni¬ 
versity  of  Chicago,  which  has  been  a  nota¬ 
ble  object  of  Rockefeller  generosity,  has 
from  the  beginning  taught  progressive 
social  theories,  some  of  which,  if  practi¬ 
cally  applied,  would  prevent  the  profits 
of  great  monopolies  from  going  into  pri¬ 
vate  pockets.  Few  universities  will  accept 
gifts  with  outright  provisions  that  limit 
freedom  of  speech. 

Still,  the  peril  is  real  and  the  churches 
must  unitedly  stand  against  it.  If  a  man 
gives  money  to  a  church  or  school,  he  must 
keep  hands  off.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind 
that  men  of  immense  financial  means  may 
not  be  men  of  immense  social  understand¬ 
ing.  In  America  we  make  the  easy  mistake 
of  often  thinking  that  a  man  who  is  an 
authority  in  industry  is  an  authority  on 


80 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


social  concerns.  He  may  not  be.  He 
may  honestly  believe  that  the  system  on 
which  he  has  been  brought  up  and  made 
rich  is  sacred,  while  it  may  be  the  reverse 
of  sacred.  Either  Christianity  must  be 
left  free  to  use  its  moneys  without  fear  of 
the  money  givers  or  it  must  return  to  com¬ 
plete,  almost  poverty-stricken  simplicity. 
Better  have  a  whole  truth  uttered  by  a 
church  whose  preachers  tramp  the  road¬ 
sides,  than  a  half-truth  uttered  from  a 
church  under  the  domination  of  the  forces 
of  this  world.  The  churches  can  succeed 
against  the  materialism  of  the  money 
standard  and  money  control  only  by  a 
united  uncompromising  insistence  upon  a 
spiritual  ideal. 

Once  more,  the  church  has  to  stand 
against  another  massive  force,  upon  occa¬ 
sion  almost  a  brute  force.  That  is  the  force 
of  a  public  opinion  which  at  times  rides 
down  everything  which  may  happen  to  be 
in  opposition  to  itself.  For  public  opinion 
of  the  enlightened  order  the  church  has 
only  approval.  The  formation  of  such 
opinion  is  the  main  reliance  of  the  church 
in  the  redemption  of  society.  Public 


IS  CHURCH  UNITY  POSSIBLE?  81 


opinion  unenlightened,  selfish,  headstrong 
in  its  fury,  is  one  of  the  worst  obstacles  to 
the  advance  of  righteousness. 

Here,  then,  are  three  campaigns  which 
call  for  the  united  effort  of  all  the  churches, 
none  of  them  requiring  any  surrender  by 
the  churches  of  any  denominational  loy¬ 
alty  :  the  conflict  with  the  forces  of  physical 
might,  conflict  with  the  forces  arising  from 
control  of  the  material  goods  of  this  world, 
the  conflict  with  a  public  opinion  at  times 
the  expression  of  animal  and  mob  instincts. 
These  three  constitute  a  veritable  triune 
anti-Christ  whose  overthrow  will  require 
all  the  power  of  the  church.  Moreover, 
victory  can  finally  come  only  at  the  cost  of 
an  effort  at  religious  education  which  shall 
seize  the  growing  minds  of  successive  gen¬ 
erations  so  firmly  and  thoroughly  as  to 
amount  virtually  to  a  making-over  of 
human  nature.  In  the  presence  of  a  task 
of  such  sheer  magnitude  and  appalling 
difficulty  any  serious  cherishing  of  tradi¬ 
tional  and  divisive  group  peculiarities  indi¬ 
cates  an  utter  obliviousness  to  what  the 
very  name  “Christian”  means. 


82 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


In  earlier  pages  I  have  spoken  of  per¬ 
sonal  evangelism  in  terms  that  suggest 
lack  of  confidence  in  that  evangelism.  My 
lack  of  confidence  applies  to  an  individual 
evangelism  too  narrowly  conceived.  I  want 
evangelism  to  begin  with  earliest  child¬ 
hood  and  spread  to  all  parts  of  human 
nature.  The  individual  always  has  to 
stand  at  the  center  of  any  social  evan¬ 
gelism.  If  I  may  do  so  without  presump¬ 
tion,  may  I  say  that  the  phase  of  the  gospel 
which  should  to-day  be  most  earnestly 
preached  to  individuals  is  emphasis  on 
reconciliation  and  communion  as  the  wit¬ 
ness  of  the  Spirit  present  in  human  society. 
Anything  that  can  to-day — even  in  the 
narrowest  relationship — set  before  the 
world  a  picture  or  a  hint  of  reconciliation 
is  socially  most  valuable.  If  thou  bring 
thy  gift  to  the  altar  and  there  remember 
that  thy  brother  hath  aught  against  thee, 
first  go  and  be  reconciled  to  thy  brother 
and  then  come  and  offer  thy  gift.  This  is 
of  the  essence  of  the  gospel.  Such  a  gospel 
does  not  mean  that  we  are  to  love  all  men 
alike  in  the  emotional  sense,  but  it  does 
mean  that  we  are  to  bear  toward  all  men  a 


IS  CHURCH  UNITY  POSSIBLE?  83 


spirit  of  good  will  and  a  willingness  to 
merge  ourselves  in  groups.  Jesus  felt  that 
men  could  not  get  close  to  God  if  any 
obstacles  kept  them  apart  from  one  an¬ 
other.  We  are  to  forgive  debts — the  pas¬ 
sage  seems  to  have  in  mind  debts  given  to 
help  need — because  the  existence  of  the 
debt  keeps  men  apart.  The  individual 
gospel,  if  it  gets  as  far  as  the  creation  of  a 
spirit  of  reconciliation  among  men  of  any 
circle,  teaches  the  gospel  lesson  to  an  out¬ 
side  world  in  danger  of  falling  to  pieces 
through  men’s  inability  to  live  together. 
To  secure  the  individual  blessing  of  Divine 
Life — according  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus — 
this  immediate  social  duty  of  reconciliation 
with  a  brother  must  be  discharged.  Yet 
the  task  here,  we  repeat,  calls  for  such 
focusing  and  economy  of  spiritual  force  as 
to  leave  no  justifiable  place  for  any  group 
loyalties  which  would  subtract  an  ounce  of 
power  from  the  main  purpose. 

To  make  clear  to  a  world  perishing  for 
the  lack  of  a  spirit  of  reconciliation  the  im¬ 
portance  of  adjustments  which  bring  men 
together  the  Protestant  churches  should 
forthwith  proceed  to  some  form  of  federa- 


84 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


tion  among  themselves  which  will  make 
them  practically  a  unit.  To  say  that  the 
mind  of  the  church  is  not  equal  to  a  step 
which  will  organize  into  expression  the 
measure  of  unity  which  already  exists  is 
to  admit  that  the  mind  of  the  church,  or, 
rather,  the  collective  intelligence  of  the 
Protestant  churches,  is  not  equal  to  a  task 
already  performed  by  the  British  Empire, 
by  the  Standard  Oil  Company,  and  by  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  each  of  which 
organizations  permits  as  much  diversity  as 
the  diverse  Protestant  sects  now  need  and 
yet  centralizes  for  the  tasks  which  only 
centralization  can  accomplish. 

It  is  the  duty  of  the  churches  to  remem¬ 
ber  that  a  church  in  these  days  is  to  be 
Christian.  In  a  Methodist  General  Con¬ 
ference  I  once  knew  a  good  brother  to 
insist  upon  asking  a  creed  subscription  of 
candidates  for  membership  on  the  ground 
that  any  organization  has  a  right  to  define 
the  terms  of  admission  to  its  own  ranks. 
“Do  not  the  clubs  to  which  I  belong,”  he 
asked,  “lay  down  terms  for  admission?” 
Unfortunately  for  this  argument  the  church 
is  not  a  club.  The  instant  we  use  the  term 


IS  CHURCH  UNITY  POSSIBLE?  85 


“church,”  with  the  suggestion  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  at  least,  we  are  estopped  from  lay¬ 
ing  down  any  terms  except  those  which 
we  believe  the  Lord  Jesus  would  accept 
and  approve.  That  the  Lord  Jesus  would 
aim  at  diversity  of  Christian  experience 
and  practice  we  all  believe, — that  he  would 
approve  of  diversity’s  preventing  substan¬ 
tial  union  here  and  now  into  one  fold  we 
can  never  believe.  The  substantial  union 
would  enrich  any  diversity  worthy  to  be 
called  Christian. 


Ill 


THE  CHURCH  AND  LABOR 

In  considering  what  Labor  has  a  right 
to  expect  of  the  church  we  must  remember 
at  the  outset  that  the  church  is  supposed 
to  set  before  the  world  a  human  ideal  so 
high  that  in  practice  she  can  never  expect 
fully  to  overtake  it.  Whether  or  not  an 
outsider  accepts  for  himself  the  thought  of 
the  church  concerning  God,  he  has  a  right 
to  insist  that  a  church  holding  to  the  Chris¬ 
tian  idea  that  God  is  like  Christ  is  by  that 
very  profession  under  the  heaviest  obliga¬ 
tion  to  be  loyal  to  the  Christ  idea  of  man. 

There  is  an  immeasurably  heavier  re¬ 
sponsibility  upon  the  church  in  its  relation 
to  men  than  upon  any  other  human  or¬ 
ganization.  Let  us  suppose  an  organiza¬ 
tion  for  the  relief  of  men  at  some  particular 
pinch  of  distress,  a  society  for  the  relief  of 
sufferers  in  famine-ridden  or  plague- 
stricken  districts.  Such  a  society  may  suc¬ 
ceed  altogether  in  preventing  death  by 

86 


THE  CHURCH  AND  LABOR  87 


starvation  or  in  wiping  out  a  plague.  As 
far  as  we  can  say  that  anything  human  is 
done  perfectly,  we  may  say  that  the  work 
of  such  an  organization  is  done  perfectly. 
The  ideal  is  a  limited  ideal.  When  we  are 
dealing  with  the  church,  however,  we  have 
to  do  not  with  a  limited  and  specific  ob¬ 
ject.  We  have  to  recognize  the  responsi¬ 
bility  of  the  church  to  aid  everything  that 
means  larger  and  finer  human  life,  and  such 
an  ideal  never  can  be  fully  realized.  Even 
if  we  satisfy  a  given  round  of  human  needs, 
new  needs  forthwith  emerge,  and  the  goal 
seems  as  far  off  as  ever.  The  impossibility 
of  catching  up  with  the  ideal  is  a  part  of 
the  glory  of  Christianity  on  the  one  hand, 
and  a  reason  for  constant  urging  and 
prodding  of  Christianity  on  the  other. 

We  repeat  that  the  profession  of  belief 
in  a  Christ-like  God  puts  heavier  obliga¬ 
tions  upon  the  church  than  upon  a  merely 
humanitarian  organization  which  does  not 
avow  such  belief.  Let  us  think  of  a  group 
of  men  whose  religious  views  are  agnostic. 
So  far  as  they  know,  man  is  a  creature  of 
the  moment.  He  lives  a  little  while  and 
goes.  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that 


88 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


he  is  an  object  of  especial  concern  to  any 
power  back  of  the  universe,  no  reason  to 
think  that  his  life  reaches  beyond  the 
grave.  Since  his  life  is  so  brief  and  so 
hard  at  best,  let  us  work  with  all  our  might 
to  make  the  days  of  men  between  the 
cradle  and  the  grave  as  happy  as  possible. 
There  is  no  use  denying  that  many,  many 
holders  of  such  a  creed  as  this  labor  un¬ 
selfishly  for  men.  They  are  filled  with  the 
Christ  spirit  even  though  they  do  not  call 
themselves  by  the  Christ  name.  All  I  am 
trying  to  say  is  that  the  holders  of  such 
creeds  are  not  by  their  creeds  under  such 
obligation  to  serve  their  fellow  men  as  are 
the  holders  of  the  belief  in  the  Christ-like 
God.  If  the  Christian  is  to  take  his  belief 
in  God  seriously,  he  must  be  utterly  un¬ 
remitting  in  the  service  of  his  fellow  men. 
There  can  be  no  discharge  in  the  war  in 
their  behalf,  no  letting  down  in  the  effort 
to  help  men. 

The  situation  for  the  church  is  made 
further  difficult  by  the  fact  that  though 
her  head  rises  among  the  loftiest  human 
ideals,  her  feet  are  firmly  caught  in  the 
earth.  Professing  the  noblest  ideals  for 


THE  CHURCH  AND  LABOR  89 


men,  she  has  to  adjust  herself  to  an  indus¬ 
trial  and  social  situation  which  at  the  best 
largely  contradicts  those  ideals.  Her  peo¬ 
ple  have  to  make  their  living.  They  earn, 
invest,  and  spend  money.  If  the  money  is 
legally  earned,  invested,  and  spent  there  is 
no  question  as  to  the  possibility  of  a  church 
member’s  holding  his  place  in  the  church 
fellowship.  Are  legal  ways  of  using  money, 
however,  necessarily  Christian?  Here  we 
come  upon  the  contradiction  between  ideal 
and  practice.  It  is  manifest  that  the 
church  cannot  lower  the  ideal.  If  she  does, 
she  ceases  to  be  a  Christian  Church,  though 
she  might  conceivably  become  a  worthy 
and  useful  social  organization  of  more  lim¬ 
ited  aim.  Now,  let  it  be  remembered  that 
no  matter  how  far  the  church  falls  short  of 
her  ideal  for  human  contacts,  the  ideal  is 
nevertheless  there.  No  matter  how  far  the 
church  is  the  outcome  and  expression  of  a 
capitalistic  bourgeois  era,  for  example,  she 
never  loses  sight  of  the  ideal  altogether. 
Furthermore,  at  certain  periods  of  the  Mid¬ 
dle  Ages  the  church  herself  was  one  of  the 
largest,  perhaps  the  largest,  property  holder 
in  European  society.  From  the  moment 


90 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


the  church  became  the  official  Church  of 
Rome,  compromises  with  the  spirit  of  this 
world  became  inevitable.  Neither  political 
nor  financial  compromises,  however,  pre¬ 
vented  the  human  ideal  of  Christianity 
from  making  its  course  with  increasing 
effectiveness  out  into  human  society.  There 
was  far  more  actual  human  brotherhood 
than  we  realize.  Moreover,  the  church  al¬ 
ways  allows  to  a  marvelous  degree  criti¬ 
cism  of  herself  by  her  own  members.  I 
think  we  have  here  a  social  phenomenon  of 
no  small  proportion.  I  do  not  know  any 
other  social  institution  which  allows  such 
open,  public  proclamation  of  its  own  faults 
by  its  own  members  as  does  the  church. 
Other  organizations,  indeed,  talk  over  their 
faults  among  themselves,  but  the  church 
probably  leads  all  social  groups  in  tol¬ 
erating  public  criticism  of  herself  by  her 
own  people.  Underneath  this  there  is  in 
the  mind  of  the  churchmen  who  think  at 
all  the  realization  that  the  ideal  is  far,  far 
ahead,  and  that  any  criticism  which  stings 
the  church  to  more  rapid  progress  is  worth 
while. 

I  think  I  have  put  the  case  for  the 


THE  CHURCH  AND  LABOR  91 


church  with  substantial  fairness.  She  is 
the  holder  of  an  ideal  of  human  relation¬ 
ships  which  will  gleam  far  ahead  of  society 
hundreds  and  hundreds  of  years  from  now, 
when  schemes  that  to-day  seem  Utopian 
will  be  cast  out  as  reactionary  and  obso¬ 
lete.  She  cannot  live  up  to  her  own  ideal. 
Since  she  cannot  surrender  the  ideal  with¬ 
out  surrendering  her  own  life,  there  is  but 
one  course  open  to  her — to  accept  and 
profit  by  every  stimulus  from  every 
quarter.  Agitators  within  and  without  her 
membership  are  veritable  means  of  grace. 

The  church  is  more  and  more  listening  to 
criticism  of  herself  from  industrial  and  so¬ 
cial  groups.  The  criticisms  at  the  very 
points  I  have  mentioned  are  sinking  in, 
the  responsibility  of  the  church  to  hold  to 
the  belief  in  a  Christ-like  God,  and  the 
actual  entanglement  of  the  church  in  the 
affairs  of  the  world.  It  will  be  a  sad  day 
for  the  church  wThen  the  leaders  of  the 
labor  groups  cease  to  rub  these  sensitive 
spots.  These  are  the  sore  places,  and 
criticism  should  never  cease.  I  repeat  that 
even  the  man  who  is  atheist  or  agnostic 
has  a  right  to  call  upon  the  church  for  in- 


92 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


creasing  loyalty  to  her  own  ideal.  In  the 
name  of  Christ  a  man  who  does  not  take 
upon  himself  the  name  of  Christian  has  a 
right  to  call  out  as  to  the  contradiction 
between  the  ideals  and  practices  of  the 
church.  The  contradiction  is  there.  It 
will  always  be  there.  The  only  condition 
on  which  it  can  be  there  safely  is  by  open 
recognition  leading  to  constant  and  deep¬ 
ening  repentance  and  consecration  on  the 
part  of  the  church  itself.  Especially  should 
the  entanglement  of  the  church  in  the  proc¬ 
esses  by  which  its  members  make  money 
always  be  kept  out  in  the  full  light.  All 
this  makes  for  humility  out  of  which 
spiritual  progress  comes.  A  boastful 
church  makes  no  progress.  A  complacent 
church  is  already  dead. 

So,  then,  let  leaders  of  industrial  groups 
who  feel  that  the  church  is  not  fair  to  the 
working  masses  take  their  part  in  holding 
before  the  church  the  ideal  of  the  church 
itself. 

Can  a  church  that  preaches  the  Christ 
ideal  both  for  man  and  God  sit  quietly  by 
while  great  basic  industries  demand  a 
twelve-hour  day  for  heavy  manual  labor? 


THE  CHURCH  AND  LABOR  93 


Can  such  a  church  sanction  the  efforts  to 
deprive  men  of  all  right  to  have  some 
voice  in  the  conditions  governing  their  own 
employment,  a  voice  expressed  in  union 
with  their  fellows  and  through  representa¬ 
tives  of  their  own  choosing? 

I  keep  harking  back  to  this  fundamental 
emphasis  on  the  ideal  because  that  is  the 
point  of  labor’s  effective  contact  with  the 
church.  Labor  will  deprive  itself  of  most 
important  aid  from  the  church  if  it  begins 
to  ask  that  the  church  be  a  definitely  lim¬ 
ited  social  propaganda  agency  or  institution 
for  the  direct  relief  of  laborers  in  any  sort 
of  distress.  All  such  work  the  church 
should  no  doubt  aid,  but  always  in  the 
name  of  the  fundamental  ideal  of  the 
church.  If  labor  can  help  hold  the  church 
to  the  proclamation  of  the  Christ  ideal,  it 
will  render  signal  service.  Suppose  the 
most  of  the  attendants  of  the  ordinary 
church  are  bourgeois  in  their  point  of  view. 
Are  there  not  preachers  of  the  gospel 
to-day  who  are  doing  more  than  any  other 
agencies  to  introduce  to  the  bourgeois  lay¬ 
man  those  wider  ideas  of  human  equality 


94 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


on  which  we  must  advance  toward  indus¬ 
trial  democracy?  The  church  is  always 
colored  by  the  economic  life  of  the  time, 
but  the  church  always  has  at  least  some 
preachers  who  point  out  the  fact  and  peril 
of  that  coloring. 

One  handicap  on  the  part  of  the  church 
to-day  in  dealing  with  industrial  and  social 
questions  is  the  difficulty,  for  anyone  out¬ 
side  the  industrial  groups,  of  getting  hold 
of  the  facts  as  they  a^e  in  the  concrete. 
We  are  all — church  circles,  labor  circles, 
capitalistic  circles — caught  in  manias  for 
propaganda.  We  do  not  ask  as  to  what 
the  facts  are,  but  as  to  what  the  facts  can 
be  made  to  show  for  our  side.  Now,  a 
church  which  professes  to  serve  Christ 
cannot  be  Christian  and  be  indifferent  to 
the  point  of  view  of  men  by  the  million 
who  are  by  labor  earning  their  daily  bread. 
The  church  needs  to  know  how  the  labor¬ 
ing  groups  state  their  own  thoughts  and 
feelings,  but  she  needs  above  all  to  know 
the  facts  about  the  way  men  live,  and 
about  their  chances  to  get  anything  like 
adequate  conditions  of  existence. 

Will  the  critic  of  the  ignorance  of  the 


THE  CHURCH  AND  LABOR  95 


church  as  to  social  matters  please  con¬ 
sider  for  just  a  moment  the  plight  of  the 
churchman  who  tries  to  get  at  social  facts? 
Our  first  thought  is  likely  to  be  that  all 
one  has  to  do  to  get  facts  as  to  labor  is 
to  read  the  newspapers.  In  reality,  the 
newspapers  are  nearly  useless  in  such  mat¬ 
ters.  They  can  publish  the  list  of  casual¬ 
ties  in  a  labor  conflict,  but  they  cannot 
tell  the  point  of  view  of  the  laborer.  It 
requires  far  more  training  to  do  this  than 
the  ordinary  reporter  has.  Such  a  reporter 
can  no  more  report  a  labor  meeting  ade¬ 
quately  than  he  can  report  a  religious 
assembly  or  a  scientific  convention.  We 
turn  then  to  the  scientific  expert.  The 
expert  can,  indeed,  help  us  to  a  certain 
type  of  objective  fact,  but  he  is  so  obsessed 
with  a  craze  for  scientific  balance  and  im¬ 
partiality — paradoxical  as  the  expression 
sounds — that  he  often  fails  to  see  straight 
in  an  atmosphere  charged  with  human  feel¬ 
ing;  that  too  in  a  situation  where  human 
feeling  is  the  most  determining  factor.  I 
once  had  a  scientific  expert  protest  against 
some  statements  I  had  made  about  the 
misuse  of  State  constabulary  in  mill-cities 


96 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


during  strikes,  telling  me  how  safe  it  was 
for  defenseless  farmers  to  live  on  roads 
patrolled  by  State  police.  All  I  was  asking 
was  that  the  police  limit  themselves  to 
their  proper  duties  of  keeping  the  country 
roads  safe.  Some  scientifically  minded  so¬ 
cial  students  are  so  fearful  of  positive 
unqualified  statements  that  their  deliver¬ 
ances  are  utterly  unscientific. 

The  only  way  for  the  outsider  to  get  the 
facts  is  to  urge  members  of  industrial 
groups  to  speak  up  and  insist  upon  being 
heard,  speaking  in  the  name  of  fact.  No 
matter  how  much  bias  the  members  of  the 
industrial  group  may  have,  they  can  tell 
their  own  story  as  no  one  else  can  tell  it 
for  them.  If  there  could  be  in  labor  utter¬ 
ances  less  denunciation  and  more  plain 
statement,  we  should  all  get  along  much 
faster.  It  is  the  business  of  the  church  to 
get  the  facts,  but  they  cannot  be  got  with¬ 
out  the  help  of  the  labor  groups  themselves. 

I  don’t  see  how  the  aid  of  labor  to  the 
church  can  stop  short  of  labor’s  coming  to 
the  inside  of  the  church.  It  is  almost  im¬ 
possible  to  write  like  this  without  seeming 
to  show  a  desire  to  win  converts  to  the 


THE  CHURCH  AND  LABOR  97 


church  as  an  organization.  I  am  not  urging 
labor  groups  to  come  forward  to  the  altar 
rails  of  churches  now  filled  by  a  non-labor 
class  and  join  such  churches.  Suppose, 
though,  we  look  at  it  all  from  another 
angle.  Suppose  the  labor  leader  to  be 
actuated  by  a  genuinely  Christian  ideal. 
Suppose  his  life  is  given  to  unselfish  serv¬ 
ice.  Why  should  he  not  be  able,  with  the 
possibilities  of  framing  statements  of  belief 
open  to  congregations  to-day,  to  establish 
religious  centers  among  laborers,  led,  if 
need  be,  by  the  laborers  themselves?  The 
church  to-day  is  so  anxious  for  unity  that 
once  such  centers  were  established,  the 
congregations  elsewhere  would  have  to 
heed  their  statements  of  religious  ideals. 
The  laborers  claim  to  be  followers  of  Christ 
— even  though  they  are  outside  of  the 
church.  If  they  are  followers  of  Christ, 
why  can  they  not  organize  that  fact  into  a 
Christian  organization?  Let  the  organiza¬ 
tion  stand  at  first  outside  of  all  relationship 
to  other  ecclesiastical  organizations,  until 
mutual  fear  and  suspicion  can  be  over¬ 
come.  Let  the  labor  groups  adopt  any 
rules  they  please  to  guard  their  organiza- 


98 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


tions  from  any  sort  of  “upper-”  or  “middle- 
class”  control.  If  this  could  be  done  the 
whole  temper  of  organized  religion  toward 
the  working  classes  would  soon  change. 
Considering  the  unwillingness  of  labor 
groups  to  come  into  the  church,  it  is  re¬ 
markable  that  labor  sentiment  is  as  well 
represented  in  the  church  as  it  is. 

Of  course,  the  working  class  would  have 
to  give  up  some  things  sooner  or  later  if 
such  labor  churches  were  established.  The 
materialistic  interpretation  of  history,  for 
one  thing,  would  have  to  go  by  the  board. 
By  the  way,  one  of  the  oddest  phenomena 
in  the  history  of  thought  has  been  the  ex¬ 
tent  to  which  that  materialistic  interpreta¬ 
tion  has  been  debated  with  spiritual  fervor. 
Men  have  showed  by  their  spiritual  devo¬ 
tion  to  a  materialistic  idea  that  they  have 
not  been  materialistically  minded.  Men 
have  unselfishly  fought  for  a  theory  on  the 
face  of  it  selfish.  Just  as  the  churchman 
has  at  times  fought  with  carnal  selfishness 
for  a  spiritual  ideal,  so  the  social  leader  has 
at  times  fought  with  rare  spiritual  conse¬ 
cration  for  a  materialistic  ideal.  So  with 
class  conflict,  as  often  held.  The  doctrine 


THE  CHURCH  AND  LABOR  99 


of  class  conflict  can  he  stated  in  Christian 
terms  as  condemnation  of  any  class  of 
idlers,  but  as  stated  in  the  orthodox 
Marxian  terms  it  is  not  Christian.  This 
doctrine,  as  socialistically  stated,  would 
sooner  or  later  have  to  go,  but  not  by  the 
say-so  of  anyone  outside.  Let  a  labor 
church  start  at  first  with  a  laborer’s  Christ. 
We  could  trust  both  labor  and  the  Christ 
soon  to  advance  to  a  Christ  of  all  men. 

If  laboring  groups  will  not  come  into 
churches  now  in  existence  or  form  churches 
after  patterns  of  their  own,  all  we  can  do 
is  to  keep  on  talking  about  ways  of  bring¬ 
ing  churches  and  industrial  groups  to  bet¬ 
ter  mutual  understanding. 

It  might  help  on  toward  such  under¬ 
standing  if  the  church  were  encouraged  to 
state  the  human  ideal,  of  which  we  have 
spoken  so  much,  in  more  and  more  con¬ 
crete  terms.  There  is  one  common  mistake 
under  which  many  a  preacher  takes  shelter 
when  he  is  asked  his  opinion  about  a 
definite  and  specific  human  situation  in 
industry — the  mistake  that  the  gospel 
proclaims  general  and  abstract  principles 


100 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


which  will  in  the  end  work  their  own  way 
out  into  expression  in  society,  and  that  the 
duty  of  the  preacher  stops  with  the  ab¬ 
stract  utterance.  If  I  read  the  Scriptures 
aright,  they  do  indeed  announce  principles, 
but  they  do  not  state  them  abstractly. 
The  beginning  of  the  movement  of  Israel 
toward  emphasis  on  the  worth  of  human 
life  was  not  in  abstract  terms,  but  in 
specific  insights.  The  prophets  announced 
fundamental  social  principles  indeed,  but 
they  phrased  them  in  denunciations  of 
those  who  laid  house  to  house  and  land  to 
land  till  there  was  no  place  left  for  the 
poor.  They  talked  of  bowls  of  strong 
drink  and  of  ivory  couches,  of  women  who 
affected  mincing  steps  and  who  did  their 
hair  up  on  round  tires  like  the  moon.  One 
prophet  even  referred  to  such  women  as 
the  kine  of  Bashan.  Language  like  this  is 
not  abstract.  Nor  was  Jesus  abstract  in 
treating  evils  of  his  day.  He  did  not  in¬ 
deed  attack  capitalism  as  such,  but  cap¬ 
italism  in  its  present  form  did  not  exist 
then.  He  attacked  the  vested  interests, 
for  example,  that  had  to  do  with  the  con¬ 
trol  of  the  Temple,  and  managed  to  get  a 


THE  CHURCH  AND  LABOR  101 


good  many  concrete  things  said  in  the 
attack.  I  have  often  thought  how  easy  it 
would  have  been  for  Jesus  to  say  all  that 
he  said  against  the  high  priests  and  Scribes 
and  Pharisees  without  offending  them.  If 
the  words  of  Jesus  in  a  famous  passage  in 
Matthew  had  been  turned  over  for  editing 
to  some  lover  of  the  abstract,  everything 
which  Jesus  said  could  have  been  preserved 
in  an  abstract  utterance  which  would  have 
hurt  nobody.  Put  the  references  to  whited 
sepulchres,  binding  men’s  shoulders  with 
burdens  grievous  to  be  borne,  devouring 
widows’  houses,  in  abstract  terms  and  they 
can  be  quite  pleasantly  stated.  The  prin¬ 
ciples  of  Jesus,  however,  have  to  be  seized 
in  the  concrete  statement  which  he  gave 
them  in  his  time  and  to  be  restated  in  con¬ 
crete  terms  fitting  our  own  day. 

Labor  is  right  and  just  in  expecting  that 
the  church  state  to-day  in  living  terms  the 
ideals  of  Jesus  with  such  effectiveness  as  to 
make  social  injustice  impossible.  Labor 
cannot  expect  the  church  herself  to  tell  in 
detail  just  how  the  ideals  of  Jesus  are  to  be 
wrought  out  in  rule  or  code  or  custom. 
That  is  a  duty  of  technicians.  When  the 


102 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


demand  gets  strong  enough  in  modern  life 
for  the  removal  of  social  abuses,  the  abuses 
will  go.  When  the  general  public  senti¬ 
ment  gets  strong  enough  to  demand  the 
grant  of  further  powers  to  laboring  groups, 
the  powers  will  be  granted.  There  is  noth¬ 
ing  inherently  impossible  about  putting 
heavy  labor  in  continuous  processes  in 
basic  industries  on  an  eight-hour  shift, 
nothing  impossible  in  granting  groups  of 
laborers  the  right  to  organize  for  larger 
control  of  the  conditions  under  which  they 
do  their  work,  nothing  impossible  in  at 
least  listening  to  anything  that  labor  has 
to  say.  The  employing  classes  boast  of 
their  large  control  over  managing  ability. 
The  managing  ability  will  one  day  show 
itself  socially  worthy  of  the  admittedly  high 
remuneration  which  it  receives  by  working 
out  plans  which  will  make  possible  the 
realization  of  some  of  the  above  changes. 
Public  opinion  will  be  the  determining  fac¬ 
tor.  When  public  opinion  says  so,  capital¬ 
istic  leaders  will  order  into  effect  all  the 
important  grants  which  labor  asks  for.  In 
the  steady  generation  of  a  fundamentally 
humane  public  spirit  and  temper  and  de- 


THE  CHURCH  AND  LABOR  103 


mand,  the  church  can  perform  an  indis¬ 
pensable  part.  Sooner  or  later  she  will, 
by  the  insistence  upon  the  rights  due  every 
man,  make  her  contribution  to  the  neces¬ 
sary  climatic  changes  in  social  realms 
looking  toward  better  life  even  for  the 
lowliest  manual  labor. 

In  what  I  have  been  saying  I  have  had 
in  mind  the  church  as  a  whole.  May  I 
say  also  that  in  many  individual  churches 
pastors  and  people  are  working  definitely 
at  specific  tasks  to  learn  about  laboring 
groups  in  a  spirit  of  sincere  helpfulness.  I 
do  not  find  among  churches  any  tendency 
to  patronize  labor.  In  some  quarters  good 
men  hold  back  from  seeking  too  close  an 
approach  to  labor  for  fear  of  giving  offense 
to  those  who  pride  themselves  on  their 
own  spiritual  and  moral  resources.  More¬ 
over,  even  though  some  churches  are  la¬ 
mentably  weak  in  their  hold  on  organized 
labor  they  are,  for  the  most  part,  composed 
of  honest,  hardworking  people,  filled  with 
the  spirit  of  good  will.  As  for  the  churches 
being  directly  controlled  by  money  powers, 
in  ten  years  of  experience  on  the  Methodist 
Board  of  Bishops  I  have  never  heard 


104 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


church  policies  discussed  from  the  point  of 
view  of  their  effect  on  rich  givers.  I  do 
not  deny,  however,  or  seek  to  minimize  the 
fact  that  commercial  standards  and  a  com¬ 
mercial  atmosphere  send  their  sickening 
fumes  into  the  religious  fields.  Church 
leaders  do  not  consciously  yield  to  Mam¬ 
mon.  Mammon  nevertheless  plays  too 
large  a  part  in  producing  the  social  air 
which  we  all  breathe — and  the  church  in¬ 
evitably  suffers. 


So  far  I  have  been  addressing  myself 
chiefly  to  the  side  of  labor.  May  I  turn 
now  to  a  more  direct  statement  to  church¬ 
men.  A  good  many  nervous  churchmen 
are  in  panic  these  days  over  the  appear¬ 
ance  of  radicalism  as  to  industrial  questions 
in  labor  circles,  and  over  the  support 
which  this  radicalism  is  receiving  from 
some  quarters  inside  the  church.  What  is 
this  industrial  radicalism  inside  the  church? 

Part  of  it  is  not  radicalism  at  all  except 
as  insistence  upon  free  discussion.  A  wise 
conservatism  always  insists  on  getting  the 
radical  to  talking,  for  when  the  radical 


THE  CHURCH  AND  LABOR  105 


talks  we  at  least  know  what  he  is  talking 
about.  We  do  not  know  what  he  is  talking 
about  when  he  talks  down  cellar  or  in  a 
back  alley.  Some  alleged  church  radical¬ 
ism  is  nothing  more  or  less  than  an  attempt 
to  get  industrial  discussion  out  into  the 
open,  where  we  can  all  hear  it. 

Just  after  Bolshevism  came  to  power  in 
Russia  I  was  asked  to  preach  in  Boston 
to  a  group  of  professed  Bolshevists,  whom 
a  religious  worker  had  induced  to  come  to 
church  on  the  agreement  that  after  I  had 
spoken  for  half  an  hour  they  could  talk 
back  to  me  for  an  hour  and  a  half.  The 
Bolshevists  looked  outwardly  fierce  enough 
and  used  some  fierce  figures  of  rhetoric. 
What  they  wanted  to  talk  about,  however, 
the  day  I  was  with  them,  was  the  general 
worthlessness  and  uselessness  of  bishops. 
It  was  remarkable  to  note  how  closely, 
both  in  substance  of  doctrine  and  in  ex¬ 
pression,  they  ran  parallel  to  many  a 
speech  I  had  heard  in  Methodist  preachers’ 
meetings* 

I  have  just  said  that  the  wise  conserva¬ 
tive  always  insists  upon  discussion.  I 
mean  that  he  sees  how  much  better  it  is  to 


106 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


have  such  open  discussion  than  to  have 
explosions  of  dynamite.  I  must  admit, 
however,  that  the  radical  often  does  his 
utmost  to  provoke  the  social  conservative 
to  speech,  for  the  conservative  does  not 
always  talk  wisely.  Sidney  and  Beatrice 
Webb  have  recently  called  attention  to  the 
resentment  which  the  stand-pat  capitalist 
feels  when  the  revolutionist  laughs  at  his 
attempt  to  throw  the  cloak  of  superior 
morality  over  capitalism,  over  its  justifica¬ 
tion  of  remuneration  for  owning  rather 
than  for  service,  especially.  The  capitalist 
gets  purple  with  rage  when  the  revolution¬ 
ist  wants  to  know  why  anyone  should  pay 
the  capitalist  for  owning.  Why  doesn’t  the 
capitalist  speak  up  and  answer?  The  stock 
reply  about  being  entitled  to  pay  for  sav¬ 
ing  is  good  as  far  as  it  goes,  but  how  far 
does  it  go  toward  justification  of  pay  for 
costless  saving?  Is  the  socially  minded 
young  preacher  to  be  rebuked  just  for  ask¬ 
ing  this  question,  especially  when  we  re¬ 
member  that  the  capitalist  is  given  to 
falling  back  upon  high  moral  ground  in 
defense  of  the  existing  industrial  system? 
Religious  sanctions  are  indeed  of  the  high- 


THE  CHURCH  AND  LABOR  107 


est  worth.  All  the  more  reason,  then,  for 
being  patient  with  the  radical  Christian 
who  wants  to  know  what  the  sanctions  are, 
when  a  particular  feature  of  present  indus¬ 
try  is  under  scrutiny.  The  instant  we 
speak  of  sacredness  the  Christian  has  a 
right  to  ask  questions. 

The  truth  is  that  the  church  is  always 
baptizing  and  receiving  into  its  fellowship 
social  institutions  before  she  is  sure  that 
those  institutions  have  soundly  been  con¬ 
verted. 

Dr.  Percy  Gardner  has  rendered  inval¬ 
uable  service  in  interpreting  church  his¬ 
tory  as  a  succession  of  such  institutional 
baptisms  into  Christ — or  at  least  into  the 
name  of  Christ.  Greek  thought  and  Greek 
religious  ritual,  Roman  law  and  adminis¬ 
tration,  Teutonic  family  customs  all  have 
been  baptized  into  the  name  of  Christ. 
The  process  still  goes  on.  Now,  when  it 
comes  to  baptizing  an  industrial  order  into 
the  name  of  Christ  we  are  fortunate  in¬ 
deed  if  we  have  some  ruthless  questioner 
at  hand,  young  enough  not  to  have  any 
more  sense  than  to  put  searching  inquiries 
to  the  candidate.  It  would  never  do  to 


108 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


baptize  individuals  without  at  least  some¬ 
body  to  answer  for  them.  Why  should  not 
the  institutional  candidate  submit  to  cate¬ 
chizing?  Such  questioning  is  an  ungracious 
task  at  best — but  it  has  to  be  done.  The 
Christianization  of  the  industrial  life  may 
otherwise  lead  to  the  industrialization  of 
the  Christian  life,  which  is  not  desirable. 
Roman  imperialism  took  a  deadly  revenge 
upon  Christianity  for  bringing  it  into  nom¬ 
inal  submission  to  the  name  of  Christ  when 
Rome  finally  ended  in  the  imperialization 
of  Christianity.  So  a  questionable  indus¬ 
trial  order  might  wreak  an  ironical  revenge 
upon  a  Christianity  coming  to  formal  con¬ 
trol  over  it,  by  the  secularization  of  Chris¬ 
tianity.  It  is  the  hardest  conceivable 
spiritual  feat  for  church  officials  to  move 
in  any  atmosphere  charged  with  the  fumes 
of  commercial  success  without  being  mor¬ 
ally  poisoned.  The  worst  feature  about 
poison  gas  is  that  you  can’t  see  it.  The 
radical  performs  a  fine  service  in  reminding 
us  of  its  presence. 

Whether  we  are  dealing  with  a  codified 
system  of  law  or  with  the  body  of  customs 
and  ideas  of  which  that  law  is  the  expres- 


THE  CHURCH  AND  LABOR  109 


sion,  the  more  an  industrial  system  claims 
finality  the  more  morally  dangerous  it  is. 
So  we  need  men  to  tell  us  that  the  system 
is  in  need  of  being  broken  up  even  if  we 
have  no  intention  of  breaking  it  up.  The 
more  nearly  perfect  any  system — as  a  sys¬ 
tem — dealing  with  human  life  pronounces 
itself  the  more  need  of  being  severe  with  it. 
We  need  not  expect  the  invectives  of  the 
labor  radical  to  be  overdiscriminating.  Dis¬ 
crimination  is  not  his  task.  The  others  will 
be  discriminating  enough.  The  psalmist 
said  that  he  meditated  in  the  law  day  and 
night.  He  would  probably  have  resented 
Paul’s  charge  that  the  law  was  a  body  of 
death.  The  social  radicals  in  the  ministry 
may  be  fools — but  they  are  like  the  fools 
who  used  to  remind  rulers  of  the  ever¬ 
present  danger  of  death.  The  wise  ruler 
is  not  like  the  king  of  the  old  story  as  he 
caught  what  the  king’s  fool  was  shouting. 
“Stop  that  fool’s  mouth,”  ordered  the 
king.  “He’s  nothing  but  a  fool,”  replied 
the  courtiers.  “No  doubt,”  replied  the 
king,  “but  if  he  keeps  on  talking  like  that 
he  will  upset  my  throne.”  Such  fool’s  talk 
ought  to  be  heeded.  The  redness  of  the 


110 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


radical  is  socially  useful  if  it  is  the  red  of 
a  danger  lantern. 

Does  not  the  Christian  radical  make  the 
same  mistake  in  trying  to  Christianize 
radical  labor  views  as  does  the  church  in 
trying  to  Christianize  existing  capitalistic 
views?  Very  likely.  Let  it  be  remembered 
that  we  are  not  objecting  to  the  Christian 
appropriation  of  capitalistic  institutions  as 
such,  but  objecting  to  appropriating  them 
before  we  are  sure  they  can  be  made  Chris¬ 
tian.  The  trouble  with  all  social  systems 
is  that  they  need  Christian  birth  into  a 
new  spirit.  It  no  doubt  seems  Quixotic 
when  a  preacher  tries  to  bring  labor  rad¬ 
icalism  into  line  with  the  spirit  of  Jesus, 
but  it  is  no  more  Quixotic  than  to  attempt 
to  get  oil  kings,  and  steel  kings,  and  meat 
kings,  and  grain  kings  to  rule  primarily  for 
the  service  of  the  governed.  It  is  a  stren¬ 
uous  task,  any  way  you  look  at  it,  this 
task  of  institutional  regeneration  and  sanc¬ 
tification. 

If  all  this  seems  loose  and  dangerous,  let 
us  of  the  church  remind  ourselves  that 
there  are  grave  limitations  in  the  path  of 
the  social  prophet’s  quickly  upsetting  any- 


THE  CHURCH  AND  LABOR  111 


thing.  Amos  and  Isaiah  and  Micah 
preached  social  righteousness  twenty-five 
hundred  years  ago,  and  their  cherished 
dreams  have  not  yet  come  true.  The 
prophet's  radicalism  is  like  a  melting  snow 
in  the  Rocky  Mountains.  Sometimes  it 
does  indeed  sweep  everything  before  it  in 
flood,  but  the  rush  does  not  last  long.  In 
the  end  it  is  canalized  into  a  social  irriga¬ 
tion  system  that  does  good  after  the  radical 
is  gone.  Here  again  is  a  touch  of  irony; 
we  all  live  on  yesterday’s  radicalism.  Our 
prophets  to-day  will  be  widely  acclaimed 
by  the  next  generation.  Perhaps  it  is  just 
as  well.  If  to-day’s  prophets  had  it  all 
their  own  way  now,  they  might,  with  flood¬ 
like  violence,  tear  up  things  by  the  roots. 
To-morrow  their  radicalism  will  be  soaking 
into  these  same  roots. 

So  the  best  tactics  with  the  industrial 
radical  in  the  church  is  to  try  to  put  into 
effect  what  of  his  teaching  seems  sound. 
Above  all,  it  is  necessary  to  remember  that 
among  the  cranks  and  wild  fellows  who  ad¬ 
mittedly  get  into  the  ranks  of  the  ministry 
there  are  some  true  prophets  of  the  Most 
High — men  who  stand  in  the  line  of  sue- 


in 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


cession  from  the  prophets  of  old.  Let  them 
speak  forth.  There  are  enough  steady 
church  journalists  to  set  us  right  when  they 
lead  us  astray;  and  enough  bishops  and 
superintendents  and  secretaries  and  trustees 
to  see  that  their  practical  recommendations 
are  tactfully — oh,  so  tactfully! — amended 
and  corrected.  Anybody  who  widely  knows 
American  life  knows  how  little  danger  there 
is  of  any  quick  industrial  or  social  over¬ 
turn.  Take  Bolshevism  as  the  extreme  of 
radical  proposals.  When  Lenin  first  grasped 
power  in  Russia  he  decreed  that  the  culti¬ 
vators  of  the  soil  must  raise  all  the  grain 
they  could,  take  out  just  enough  to  carry 
themselves  to  the  next  harvest  time,  and 
send  the  rest  without  remuneration  to  the 
central  headquarters  for  distribution  among 
factory  workers.  That  was  simon-pure 
Bolshevism.  Does  anyone  who  knows  the 
American  farmer  in  the  flesh  think  that 
system  is  likely  to  come  here  quickly?  Not 
in  Coshocton  County,  Ohio,  where  I  was 
born.  That  particular  item  of  Bolshevism 
did  not  last  long  even  in  Russia. 

And  now,  having  spoken  to  labor  and  to 
the  church,  may  I  claim  the  privilege  of 


THE  CHURCH  AND  LABOR  113 


uttering  a  few  words  of  advice  to  my  more 
radically  minded  younger  brethren  in  the 
ministry — advice  which  I  fear  may  smack 
so  thoroughly  of  worldly  counsel  as  to 
nullify  all  the  high  morality  which  I  have 
thus  far  sought  to  encourage?  I  assume, 
however,  that  the  young  radical  recognizes 
the  fact  that  he  is  working  in  a  church, 
that  he  is  not  living  an  isolated  life,  that 
as  a  member  of  a  social  group  he  must 
learn  to  get  along  with  others  as  he  ex¬ 
pects  others  to  get  along  with  him,  that 
membership  in  a  group  implies  some  vital 
though  not  always  sharply  defined  obliga¬ 
tions  on  the  individual  members. 

To  begin  with,  let  me  make  use  of  the 
caution  which  a  wise  social  leader — him¬ 
self  inclined  to  radicalism — used  to  give 
his  followers,  namely,  not  to  act  in  such 
fashion  as  to  lay  oneself  open  to  the  charge 
of  pose,  or  affectation.  There  is  no  great 
harm  in  eccentricity  of  dress  or  manner  in 
itself.  If  the  peculiarity  is  the  spontaneous 
expression  of  an  ebullient  spirit  slightly  de¬ 
fiant  of  the  conventions  of  dress,  it  adds  a 
little  touch  of  the  picturesque  to  the  daily 
experience  of  the  onlooker.  In  any  case  a 


114 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


radical  would  better  defy  the  laws  of  dress 
than  the  marriage  laws.  The  sad,  sad  fact 
is,  however,  that  this  childish  world  in 
which  we  live  is  so  given  to  the  belief  that 
the  inner  things  of  the  spirit  are  manifest 
from  the  things  that  do  outwardly  appear 
that  public  opinion  is  prone  to  conclude 
that  because  a  radical  wears  an  outlandish 
collar  he,  therefore,  believes  in  free  love  or 
something  as  bad.  Our  manners  are  part 
of  our  speech  in  this  social  existence  of 
ours.  It  is  not  quite  fair  to  ourselves  or 
to  our  cause  to  have  our  clothes  and  our 
gait  and  our  gestures  shouting  forth  lies 
about  us. 

A  second  homely  word,  especially  to 
those  whose  radicalism  takes  the  direction 
of  invective,  is  the  oft-quoted  injunction  to 
make  sure  of  the  facts  before  assailing  the 
fortress  of  evil.  There  are  facts  enough  to 
assail,  if  the  crusader  is  patient  enough  to 
get  hold  of  them,  and  cool  enough  in  the 
course  of  invective  not  to  let  go  of  them. 
In  seeking  to  reform  the  present  industrial 
system  into  a  Christian  organism,  there  are 
facts  enough  in  the  admissions  of  the 
leaders  of  the  system  themselves — admis- 


THE  CHURCH  AND  LABOR  115 


sions  often  all  the  more  damaging  from  the 
fact  that  the  leaders  sometimes  do  not 
realize  that  they  are  talking  paganism. 
For  example,  the  modern  industrialist’s  ad¬ 
mission  of  his  adherence  to  industrial  au¬ 
tocracy  is  as  open  and  naive  as  was  John 
Wesley’s  admission  that  his  control  of 
Methodism  was  despotic.  “Of  course  it  is 
despotic,”  said  Wesley,  “but  I  see  no  harm 
in  despotism  as  long  as  I  am  the  despot.” 
If  we  go  beyond  such  open  admission  in 
the  search  for  facts,  let  us  make  sure  of 
the  facts.  When  Dr.  Charles  H.  Park- 
hurst  opened  his  famous  campaign  against 
Tammany  he  made  particular  charges 
which  he  felt  to  be  true,  but  which  he  did 
not  know  to  be  true.  When  he  was  called 
upon  by  Tammany  for  proof  he  said  he 
learned  a  lesson  which  would  last  him 
several  ages  into  eternity.  The  upholders 
of  questionable  social  and  industrial  meth¬ 
ods  and  systems  insist  that  he  who  an¬ 
nounces  as  a  fact  something  which  he  does 
not  know  to  be  a  fact  is  as  much  a  liar  as 
he  who  deliberately  lies,  even  if  subsequent 
investigation  proves  that  the  liar  told  the 
truth.  The  ethical  fervor  of  defenders  of 


110 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


any  form  of  status  quo  is  very  exacting  at 
this  point.  On  the  whole,  it  is  just  as  well 
for  the  Christian  radical  to  make  the  best 
putting  possible  of  his  opponent’s  side  of 
the  case — the  completest,  the  fairest,  the 
most  charitable. 

Once  more,  the  radical  should  always  re¬ 
mind  himself  that  the  demands  of  honesty 
are  not  met  just  by  his  uttering  the  truth 
to  his  own  satisfaction.  Let  me  repeat 
what  I  said  in  a  previous  chapter.  If  the 
preacher  were  merely  a  literary  character 
writing  for  the  delectation  of  a  group  of 
admirers  who  would  take  time  to  find  out 
what  he  meant,  or  if  he  were  a  pedagogue 
setting  a  task  of  interpretation  to  learners, 
the  case  would  be  different;  but  the  radical 
of  whom  I  speak  is  a  preacher  striving  after 
prophecy.  The  prophets  were  intelligible 
— at  least  to  those  of  their  own  time. 
Truth  is  uttered  to  somebody.  It  is  not 
the  highest  type  of  honesty  to  seem  to  be 
saying  one  thing  when  we  have  in  mind  a 
different  thing — if  it  is  possible  by  honest 
effort  to  avoid  misunderstanding.  Some 
misunderstanding  in  social  utterance  can¬ 
not  be  avoided.  All  the  more  reason  then 


THE  CHURCH  AND  LABOR  117 


to  avoid  what  misunderstanding  we  can. 
The  prophet  may  not  care  what  people 
think  of  himself,  but  he  ought  to  care 
what  people  think  of  his  message,  espe¬ 
cially  since  the  message  in  the  end  depends 
upon  public  opinion  to  put  it  into  effect. 
There  are  some  radicals  whose  counte¬ 
nances  themselves  are  breaches  of  the 
peace.  They  are,  of  course,  not  responsible 
for  the  fact  that  riotous  physical  features 
add  an  unintentional  ferocity  to  their  words. 
Radicals  are  to  be  blamed,  however,  if 
their  words  express  a  riotousness  which  the 
prophet  does  not  intend,  if  the  radical  can 
make  himself  clear.  It  is  a  sin  not  only 
against  literary  honesty  but  against  social 
honesty  as  well  when  a  prophet  needlessly 
seems  to  be  uttering  violence  of  opinion 
which  he  does  not  feel.  If  the  preacher  has 
to  put  in  six  days  explaining  that  he  did 
not  mean  what  he  seemed  to  intend  on  the 
preceding  Sunday,  the  question  naturally 
arises  as  to  why  he  did  not  take  pains  to 
make  himself  clear.  Was  it  fair  to  give 
five  hundred  hearers  an  impression  he  did 
not  intend?  Still,  we  must  not  bear  down 
too  hard  on  the  brother  who  allows  the 


118 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


people  to  think  he  is  wilder  than  he  is. 
His  moral  fault  is  not  as  bad  as  that  of  his 
fellow  minister  who  lets  the  people  think 
he  is  tamer  than  he  is — the  man  who  rages 
inwardly  with  a  radicalism  which  he  does 
not  openly  express — and  gets  to  the  end  of 
a  long  ministry  praised  for  being  loyal  to 
the  old  faith  and  for  never  lugging  dis¬ 
turbing  social  questions  into  the  religious 
field. 

There  are  some  grievous  moral  tempta¬ 
tions  which  beset  the  true  prophet.  It  is 
always  spiritually  dangerous  for  a  man  to 
suppose,  or  even  to  know,  that  he  has 
seized  a  moral  revelation  not  yet  vouch¬ 
safed  to  his  fellows.  He  may  forget  that 
other  men  may  have  moral  revelations  not 
yet  vouchsafed  to  him.  On  the  one  hand, 
he  is  tempted  to  think  more  highly  of  him¬ 
self  than  he  ought  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
less  highly  of  his  fellows  than  he  ought. 
There  is  always  the  possibility  of  his  be¬ 
coming  a  scold  or  a  cynic,  or  a  sour  and 
morose  nuisance.  Even  so,  he  is  a  nobler 
spectacle,  in  the  sight  of  angels  if  not  of 
men,  than  his  brother  who  has  moved 
through  this  world  of  blasted  ideals  and 


THE  CHURCH  AND  LABOR  119 


disappointed  hopes  and  stunted  lives  and 
thwarted  spiritual  endeavor  brought  about 
by  man’s  organized  inhumanity  to  man,  and 
never  raged  against  it.  There  is  a  difference 
between  prophets  and  chaplains.  Chaplains 
are  ministers  who  fit  themselves  as  com¬ 
fortably  as  may  be  to  institutions,  whether 
the  institutions  be  armies,  asylums,  or  so¬ 
cial  orders,  and  then  minister  to  the  com¬ 
fort  of  the  inmates  of  the  institution  as 
they  can.  An  army  chaplain  is  not  likely 
to  attack  war.  It  is  his  business  to  bring 
to  war  as  many  of  the  comforts  of  home  as 
possible.  Upholders  of  established  orders 
have  this  chaplain  spirit.  Probably  any 
church  organization  must  have  a  certain 
proportion  of  chaplains,  but  the  chaplain 
must  not  be  complacent  overmuch.  A  dis¬ 
appointed,  broken-spirited  failure  of  a 
prophet  is  better  than  he,  for  the  tragedy 
of  the  chaplain  is  greater  than  that  of  the 
prophet  in  that  the  chaplain  has  never 
met  in  the  institution  which  he  serves  any¬ 
thing  to  be  disappointed  about. 

Before  turning  to  another  theme  I  wish 
to  speak  a  word  of  recognition  of  the  ex- 


no 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


ample  labor  has  set  before  the  church  in 
social  efficiency  in  action  for  an  ideal. 
First  of  all,  there  is  a  sort  of  intellectual 
corrective  in  labor  itself  which  is  in  part 
responsible  for  the  intellectual  soundness  of 
at  least  the  larger  labor  policies.  Jesus 
said  that  he  who  would  do  the  will  of  God 
would  come  to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth, 
and  that  under  all  learning  must  be  a  doing 
of  the  word.  It  will  not  suffice  to  limit 
this  teaching  of  Jesus  barely  to  the  doing 
of  specifically  religious  tasks.  There  is  im¬ 
plied  here  a  recognition  of  the  fact  that 
sound  learning  bases  itself,  at  least  in  part, 
on  will  activities.  The  tool  which  a  man 
holds  tends  to  fashion  the  development  of 
his  hand,  and  that,  in  turn,  has  its  influence 
on  his  mind.  The  modern  psychologist  is 
on  the  right  track  when  he  insists  that  the 
hand  is  quite  as  important  for  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  mind  as  is  the  eye  or  the  ear. 
Robertson  of  Brighton,  toiling  as  he  did 
among  machine  operatives,  used  to  say 
that  commerce,  strictly  speaking,  apart 
from  any  considerable  manual  labor,  is  of 
low  moral  and  intellectual  significance  as 
compared  with  working  with  tools.  The 


THE  CHURCH  AND  LABOR  121 


statement  as  thus  put  is  one-sided,  but 
has  a  kernel  of  truth.  There  is  a  solidify¬ 
ing,  steadying  factor  in  the  labor  which 
has  to  do  with  things,  provided  the  work 
is  not  so  heavy  or  monotonous,  or  the 
hours  so  long  as  to  make  the  worker  merely 
part  of  the  machinery.  For  this  funda¬ 
mental  psychological  reason  there  is  likely 
to  be  a  soundness  of  intellectual  judgment 
among  manual  workers  which  is  of  social 
significance.  A  church  made  up  wholly  of 
those  not  working  with  their  hands  would 
be  a  church  given  to  vagaries  and  intel¬ 
lectual  aberrations.  Perhaps  much  of  what 
we  call  the  sanity  of  the  early  church  came 
out  of  the  fact  that  it  was  composed  of 
ordinary  people  working  for  their  daily 
bread. 

I  need  not  say  that  the  Labor  Move¬ 
ment,  in  spite  of  all  its  mistakes,  presents 
the  church  with  an  object  lesson  of  effec¬ 
tive  social  cohesion.  The  reasons  for  this 
success  are  two — reliance  on  doctrine  and 
on  group  loyalty.  The  Labor  Movement 
is  a  standing  contradiction  to  the  claim 
that  creeds  and  doctrines  are  no  longer 
socially  useful;  that  in  these  days  it  makes 


122 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


no  particular  difference  what  a  man  be¬ 
lieves.  There  is,  to  be  sure,  a  choice  in 
creeds,  but  a  creedless  social  organization 
will  not  long  hold  together.  President 
Lowell,  in  Public  Opinion  in  Peace  and 
War ,  suggestively  declares  that  the  mob 
action  described  in  the  book  of  Acts  which 
had  only  the  cry:  “Great  is  Diana  of  the 
Ephesians”  for  its  intellectual  furnishing, 
lasted  about  two  hours — about  as  long  as 
it  could  be  expected  to  last  with  nothing 
but  a  cry.  The  Labor  Movement  is 
founded  on  a  creed.  The  tighter  the  hold 
on  that  creed  the  tighter  the  organization 
sticks  together  and  the  solider  its  impact 
on  the  public  mind. 

It  is  a  mere  commonplace  to  anyone  who 
knows  labor  groups  that  the  devotion  of 
the  members  of  the  groups  to  the  groups 
is  of  high  order.  We  would  have  to  go 
back  many  centuries  in  church  history  to 
find  exact  parallels  in  large  number  to 
scores  and  hundreds  of  labor  leaders  to-day. 
The  cheap  sneer  that  the  labor  leader 
works  at  an  easy  job  for  handsome  pay  is 
given  the  lie  by  the  willingness  of  the 
leader  to  put  up  with  ridicule  and  invec- 


THE  CHURCH  AND  LABOR  123 


tive  and  persecution  and  imprisonment  for 
the  sake  of  his  cause.  As  for  the  mass  of 
organized  labor,  we  could  wish  nothing 
better  for  the  church  than  that  it  might 
command  from  its  followers  the  willing¬ 
ness  to  endure  pain  and  hunger  and  pos¬ 
sible  death  which  laborers  in  masses  time 
and  again  show  in  strikes,  mistaken  as  the 
particular  strike  may  be.  Mistake  or  no 
mistake,  the  condition  of  labor  to-day 
would  be  abject  indeed  if  it  had  not  been, 
and  if  it  were  not  now,  for  the  loyalty  of 
laborers  to  their  cause. 


The  church  ought  to  seek  to  get  hold  of 
all  this  human  power,  not,  indeed,  for  her¬ 
self,  but  for  the  common  cause  which 
churches  and  labor  groups  should  together 
seek  to  advance.  There  are  many  phases 
of  church  teaching  and  activity  which  lie 
outside  of  labor  activity;  there  are  many 
phases  of  labor  organization  activity  which 
do  not  concern  the  church.  The  two  groups 
can  unite,  however,  in  the  broad  aim  of 
setting  on  high  the  loftiest  human  ideal 
and  in  seeking  to  control  the  materials  of 
the  earth  in  the  interest  of  that  ideal. 


124 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


Public  opinion  is  the  ultimate  power  in 
social  advance.  It  works  now  and  then  by 
applauding  an  occasional  captain  of  indus¬ 
try  who  voluntarily  assists  labor  to  a  bet¬ 
ter  order,  and  by  putting  pressure  on  the 
other  captains  who  do  not  work  so  volun¬ 
tarily.  It  leads  now  to  the  repeal  of  an 
old  law,  now  to  the  passage  of  a  new  one, 
now  to  the  creation  of  that  atmosphere  in 
which  the  useless  is  left  to  atrophy  and 
the  useful  is  given  its  chance.  It  is  the 
business  of  the  church  and  of  the  Labor 
Movement  to  make  the  emphasis  of  public 
opinion  both  human  and  humane.  The 
labor  groups  will  then  see  men  getting 
their  chance  and  the  church  will  see  God 
getting  his  chance.  This  double,  or  at 
least  two-sided  and  yet  identical,  point  of 
view  is  the  Christian  view.  Meanwhile, 
we  call  upon  labor  groups  to  remember 
that  the  church  is  working  for  them  even 
though  many  church  members  do  not  know 
it,  and  might  not  approve  if  they  did,  and 
we  call  upon  the  church  groups  to  remem¬ 
ber  that  multitudes  in  the  labor  circles  are 
working  in  the  Christ  spirit,  even  though 
they  may  not  suspect  the  fact  themselves. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  LABOR  125 


None  of  the  above  is  intended  to  slow 
down  the  vigor  of  labor  in  urging  its  own 
claims,  so  long  as  that  vigor  does  not 
resort  to  violence.  The  cause  of  labor  is 
not  safe  with  either  the  capitalist  class 
alone  or  with  the  church  alone.  The  only 
method  of  showing  either  capitalism  or  the 
church  the  just  claims  of  labor  is  by  the 
insistence  of  labor  itself.  Labor  states  its 
own  case,  the  church  helps  inform  public 
opinion  as  to  the  trend  of  the  human  ideals 
of  Christianity.  Capitalism,  through  its 
technicians,  makes  the  final  adjustments 
which  mark  a  step  forward  in  the  humani¬ 
zation  and  Christianization  of  the  social 
order. 

At  this  juncture  some  impatient  reader 
breaks  out  against  what  he  calls  a  barren 
and  mean  result — capital  still  in  existence 
and  labor  always  doomed  to  fight  capital. 
Let  such  reader  remember  that  I  am  call¬ 
ing  for  orderly  and  regular  steps  of  social 
betterment  through  a  Christian  public 
opinion,  and  that  I  am  not  marking  any 
final  stopping  place  for  that  betterment. 
Capital  as  tools  we  must  always  have. 
Capital  as  organized  ownership  must  sub- 


126 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


mit  to  whatever  the  Christian  social  con¬ 
science  decrees.  The  capitalistic  spirit  of 
profit  for  private  gain  will  have  to  yield 
to  the  motive  of  service  in  all  realms. 
Let  us  believe  that  the  transformation  of 
motive,  with  whatever  change  of  social 
organization  it  may  involve,  will  come 
about  through  new  births  of  Christian 
spirit.  The  capitalistic  spirit  will  still  be 
greedy  even  if  it  takes  the  garments  of 
socialism.  Socialism,  democracy,  labor,  all 
can  be  materialistic  in  spirit.  It  is  against 
materialism  that  our  real  battle  lies,  only 
we  must  never  forget  that  materialism 
comes  often  out  of  such  poverty  that  the 
material  needs  bulk  too  large  in  the  daily 
thinking;  and  the  Christian  thought  must 
always  move  directly  against  a  soul- 
destroying  poverty.  Hence  the  paradox 
that  the  church  must  call  for  larger  ma¬ 
terial  productivity,  and  for  a  larger  share 
of  material  goods  for  labor,  for  the  sake  of 
larger  spiritual  life. 


IV 


CAN  PATRIOTISM  BE  SAVED? 

One  of  the  most  pronounced  after¬ 
effects  of  the  Great  War  has  been  the 
questioning  attitude  which  increasing  num¬ 
bers  of  thoughtful  persons  find  themselves 
taking  toward  patriotism.  The  war  nat¬ 
urally  led  to  an  exaggeration  of  the  pa¬ 
triotic  feeling.  That  was  to  be  expected, 
but  it  was  to  be  expected  also  that  with 
the  return  of  peace  the  patriotic  fervor 
would  sink  back  to  normal.  The  return 
has  been  slow.  Some  distortions  and  aber¬ 
rations  of  national  sentiment  linger  along, 
or,  rather,  show  such  vitality  as  to  raise, 
seriously,  the  question  as  to  what  place 
patriotism  can  have  in  a  Christian  scheme 
of  things.  Must  we  subscribe  to  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  “My  country  right  or  wrong”? 
Is  the  vote  of  a  majority  binding,  not 
merely  as  practically  settling  a  question  for 
the  time  being,  but  as  uttering  a  final 
moral  judgment?  Are  there  no  limits  to 

127 


128 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


the  limits  which  the  nation  is  to  set  upon 
the  utterance  of  independent  opinion? 
Must  we  always  have  war?  How  far  can 
a  majority  vote  make  right  a  scheme  for 
the  wholesale  killing  of  men?  In  the  face 
of  the  fact  that  large  numbers  of  men  are 
willing  to  make  patriotism  of  the  aggres¬ 
sive,  pugnacious,  bellicose  type  almost  a 
religion,  other  men  are  beginning  to  say 
that  patriotism  is  one  of  the  foes  of  human 
progress  and  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  that 
it  is  essentially  the  spirit  of  the  Antichrist. 
Must  we  take  either  of  these  attitudes? 
Must  we  yield  blindly  to  patriotism  or  dis¬ 
card  it  altogether  and  call  patriotism  the 
resource  and  resort  of  knaves  and  fools? 

I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  take  either 
of  such  possible  choices.  Christianity  never 
moves  forth  to  the  destruction  of  any¬ 
thing,  except  as  a  last  resort.  In  the 
Master’s  parable,  the  man  with  the  ax 
who  would  forthwith  cut  down  the  tree  was 
not,  after  all,  so  radical  or  thoroughgoing 
as  the  man  who  would  first  dig  about  the 
tree  and  fertilize  it.  Christianity  seeks  to 
save  everything  which  has  in  it  any  prom¬ 
ise  of  good  whatsoever;  but  Christianity 


CAN  PATRIOTISM  BE  SAVED?  129 


saves  on  its  own  terms — terms  of  rebirth, 
of  conversion  into  new  life.  Not  merely  in 
their  more  individualistic  duties  but  in 
their  wider  social  activities  must  men  be 
brought  under  the  spirit  of  Jesus.  One 
thing  is  sure — if  patriotism  is  not  sooner 
or  later  to  wreck  the  world,  it  will  have 
to  be  purified  by  the  spirit  of  Christ. 

One  apologist  for  a  vigorous  patriotism 
declares  that  patriotism  is  an  innate  in¬ 
stinct;  that  it  is  as  natural  as  breathing; 
that  man  is  inherently  pugnacious;  that 
there  is  an  “urge”  about  the  patriotic  feel¬ 
ing  that  links  it  close  to  the  forces  we  think 
of  as  divine. 

It  is  clear  upon  a  little  reflection  that 
there  is  some  confusion  here.  No  one  is 
denying  the  innateness  of  patriotic  feeling. 
No  one  is  denying  the  sacredness  of  a  true 
man’s  devotion  to  the  land  which  gave 
him  birth,  or  to  the  institutions  which  fos¬ 
tered  his  growing  life,  or  to  the  people 
that  made  his  own  individual  life  worth 
living.  Surely,  Christianity  is  not  to  stamp 
out  a  feeling  like  this.  No,  Christianity  is 
not  set  upon  stamping  out  anything,  but 


130 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


upon  controlling  everything  in  the  name 
and  spirit  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  Let  us  re¬ 
mind  ourselves  that  the  scientific  temper 
of  to-day  is  questioning  and  cross-question¬ 
ing  all  our  instincts  and  “urges”  to  see 
whence  they  come  and  whither  they  are 
going  and  whether  the  direction  can  be 
changed  to  advantage.  An  urge  is  no 
longer  self-evidently  divine  just  because  it 
is  an  urge.  Some  urges  come  out  of  a  phy¬ 
sical  base,  like  hunger  or  sex;  some  out  of 
selfishness,  some  out  of  pugnacity  or  the 
craving  for  acquisition.  No  urge  is  sum¬ 
marily  to  be  cast  out,  but  all  are  to  be 
controlled.  Is  it  not  possible  as  Christians 
to  control  the  patriotic  impulse?  Think  of 
what  we  are  doing  with  the  basic  instincts 
of  hunger  and  sex.  For  centuries  these 
two  forms  of  innate  human  activity  have 
been  under  a  measure  of  control.  The 
establishment  of  a  regular  routine  of  three 
meals  a  day  was  a  step  toward  the  control 
of  irregular  and  savage  eating.  The  foun¬ 
dation  of  the  family  was  the  longest  step 
ever  taken  in  the  rationalization  and 
moralization  of  a  physical  impulse.  I  am 
not  thinking,  however,  of  the  past  but  of 


CAN  PATRIOTISM  BE  SAVED?  131 


the  present,  of  the  way  scientific  rules  for 
the  guidance  of  the  hunger  impulse  to¬ 
ward  the  best  health  are  followed  so  largely 
that  some  keepers  of  dining  halls  print 
figures  of  calories  opposite  the  food  items 
in  the  bill  of  fare  and  that  treatises  on 
dietetics  sell  by  the  thousands.  I  am 
thinking  also  of  the  extent  to  which  the 
period  of  adolescence  is  studied  with  the 
aim  of  the  control  of  an  appetite  which, 
unregulated,  means  positive  disaster  to 
human  society. 

The  glamour  of  war,  in  its  actual  proc¬ 
esses,  does  not  play  much  part  just  now. 
We  know  too  well  what  the  actual  features 
of  war  are.  Poison  gas,  vermin,  and  mud 
are  elements  quite  hard  to  mix  with  glory. 
There  do  cling  around  the  patriotic  idea, 
however,  the  feelings  having  to  do  with 
adventure  and  pugnacity  and  competition. 
It  is  such  feelings  as  these  that  William 
James  seemed  to  have  in  mind  when  he 
sought  to  establish  a  moral  equivalent  for 
war.  All  of  these  can  be  controlled  in  the 
name  of  Christ.  The  conquest  of  physical 
nature  itself  calls  for  a  type  of  courage  if 
anything  higher  than  that  of  the  battle- 


132 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


field.  Some  pessimists  are  avowing  that  it 
would  be  a  good  thing  for  the  welfare  of 
the  race  if  all  our  modern  physical  and 
chemical  knowledge — especially  that  which 
has  to  do  with  the  unlocking  of  destructive 
forces — could  be  forgotten  overnight. 
There  is  ground  for  the  fear  that  we  have 
learned  the  use  of  high  explosives  before 
mastering  the  high  moral  purpose  which 
would  use  the  explosives  aright.  It  is  an 
utter  perversion  to  take  powers  like  dyna¬ 
mite  and  turn  them,  not  against  rocks 
which  block  the  paths  of  our  fellow  men, 
but  against  men  themselves.  The  search¬ 
ing  down  and  tracking  out  of  the  disease 
forces  of  nature  calls  for  keener  power  than 
that  of  military  strategy.  Moreover,  the 
increasing  seriousness  with  which  these 
exalted  human  aims  are  undertaken  can 
furnish  that  Spartan  discipline  which,  the 
strenuous  tell  us,  is  necessary  for  the  moral 
virility  of  the  successive  generations  of 
men. 

Some  who  will  concede  all  this  tell  us 
that  we  can  never  thus  productively  con¬ 
trol  the  basic  patriotic  feelings  as  long  as 
public  opinion  insists  upon  rewarding  mili- 


CAN  PATRIOTISM  BE  SAVED?  133 


tary  heroes  with  its  chief  honors.  This 
objection  can  hardly  be  taken  seriously. 
Through  long  stretches  of  time,  many  a 
nation  has  honored  leaders  who  have  never 
known  war.  Giving  the  objection  its  full 
weight,  does  it  mean  that  public  opinion 
never  can  be  converted  to  Christian  stand¬ 
ards?  Does  it  mean  that  men  as  indi¬ 
viduals  can  be  brought  to  follow  Christ, 
but  as  soon  as  they  get  together  to  discuss 
national  matters  they  are  necessarily  to  be 
swept  into  unchristian  tempers;  that  where 
two  or  three  Christians  meet  together, 
there  necessarily  and  inevitably  is  the  devil 
in  the  midst  of  them?  It  used  to  be  quite 
commonly  held  that  the  temptations  of  the 
devil  come  to  men  one  at  a  time;  that, 
when  two  or  three  good  men  get  together, 
there  Christ  is  apt  to  be  in  the  midst  of 
them.  Nowadays  it  seems  that  Christ  is 
often  conceded  to  be  the  Lord  of  the  sep¬ 
arate  and  isolated  activities  of  men,  but 
that  he  cannot  rule  the  spirit  which  takes 
hold  on  men  as  they  come  together.  The 
distance  between  this  conception  and  that 
of  the  New  Testament  needs  no  comment. 


134 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


We  have  not  touched  bottom  yet.  An 
insistent  student  of  war  deplores  war  as 
such,  but  will  have  it  that  wars  come  out 
of  economic  factors — that  there  are  only  so 
many  stores  of  raw  material  on  earth  and 
that  these  are  objects  of  competition  among 
nations.  Nations  will  fight  for  these  goods. 
It  will  not  do  to  call  men  basely  material¬ 
istic  for  thus  fighting,  for  the  conflict  is 
for  the  necessities  of  national  life.  The 
fight  is  for  self-preservation. 

We  are  willing  to  admit  that  it  is  not 
fair  to  call  nations  grossly  materialistic  for 
struggling  after  material  goods.  The  na¬ 
tion  desires  coal  and  oil  to  move  locomo¬ 
tives  and  ships,  to  turn  factory  wheels,  to 
make  garments,  to  build  houses,  to  prepare 
food.  These  are  necessities  of  life.  The 
battle  for  these  riches  is  one  form  of  the 
battle  for  existence. 

Let  us  grant  all  this.  Suppose  there  are 
not  enough  raw  materials  to  give  all  the 
peoples  all  they  can  use.  Suppose  we 
plunge  ahead  and  have  a  war  over  the 
division  of  the  raw  materials — and  the 
sources  of  the  raw  materials  pass  out  of 
the  hands  of  one  national  group  to  an- 


CAN  PATRIOTISM  BE  SAVED?  135 


other  national  group.  The  defeated  and 
robbed  nation  does  not  cease  to  exist.  It 
lives  along  somehow,  cherishing  the  deep¬ 
est  hatred  toward  the  conqueror.  How 
much  has  the  conqueror  won?  Groups  of 
financial  leaders  may  have  marvelously 
profited,  but  how  much  has  the  nation 
won  when  we  take  into  account  the  loss  of 
life,  the  crippled  youths,  the  destroyed 
capital,  the  devastated  lands,  the  pension 
lists,  the  public  indebtedness?  Just  as  a 
proposition  in  plain  good  sense,  would  not 
everybody  have  been  better  off  if  there  had 
been  a  rational  agreement  about  the  divi¬ 
sion  of  the  raw  materials?  Suppose  by  the 
agreement  that  neither  side  gets  what  it 
thinks  it  ought  to  have.  Would  not  a 
deliberate  curtailment  of  national  economic 
activity  be  better  than  the  forced  curtail¬ 
ment  which  comes  from  killing  men  and 
ruining  railroads  and  factories  and  fields? 

Another  student  tells  us  that  the  birth¬ 
rate  of  the  human  race  is  the  chief  cause 
of  war — that  some  peoples  increase  faster 
than  other  peoples  and  that  this  increase 
brings  them  into  conflict;  that  modern 
science  is  finding  ways  of  carrying  human 


136 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


life  through  infancy  to  maturity  so  that 
the  nations  are  becoming  overcrowded,  that 
a  high  natural  birth-rate  must  be  met  by  a 
high  unnatural  death-rate.  This  utterance 
indeed  has  merit,  but  where,  after  all,  is 
the  crowding  taking  place?  Germany  is 
supposed  to  have  increased  fast  in  the  last 
half  century,  but  it  does  not  seem  to  have 
been  an  actual  pressure  of  Germany’s  popu¬ 
lation  that  brought  on  the  war.  Japan  is 
increasing  fast,  but  Japan  is  not  sending 
forth  such  tremendous  streams  of  emi¬ 
grants.  The  Japanese  want  to  live  in  lands 
and  climates  like  Japan.  They  want  raw 
materials  which  they  can  manufacture  into 
finished  products  at  home. 

This  argument  at  last  comes  down  to 
about  the  same  base  as  the  other — the 
pressure  for  increasing  supplies  of  material 
for  the  increasing  population.  Is  it  better 
to  divide  than  to  fight?  Even  granting 
that  the  people  of  a  land  are  increasing 
faster  than  the  land  can  take  care  of  them, 
is  the  increase  the  outcome  of  an  irresist¬ 
ible  force?  Malthus  himself,  who  first 
formulated  the  doctrine  of  population  to 
the  effect  that,  if  the  race  were  not  hin- 


CAN  PATRIOTISM  BE  SAVED?  137 


dered  by  plague  and  catastrophe  from  con¬ 
stant  increase,  the  population  would  soon 
outrun  the  means  of  sustenance,  declared 
that  the  problem  of  equilibrium  between 
the  numbers  of  population  and  the  material 
resources  could  be  solved  by  increase  of  the 
standard  of  living  and  by  moral  restraint. 
This  population  appeal  for  war  simply 
means  that  we  are  presumably  not  dealing 
with  a  race  of  rational  beings  at  all.  It  is 
true  that  we  of  the  United  States  have  not 
yet  felt  the  pressure  of  our  population;  but 
suppose  we  were  feeling  it  now.  For  a 
time  we  were  paying  ninety-two  cents  of 
every  dollar  of  taxes  for  wars — past  or  to 
come.  Suppose  we  could  put  aside  all 
thought  of  war  and  take  that  ninety-two 
cents  per  dollar  to  develop,  intensively,  the 
agricultural  and  industrial  resources  of  the 
country.  How  long  would  it  take  us  to 
put  ourselves  on  a  basis  where  we  could 
take  care  of  all  our  possible  population 
without  asking  land  of  any  nation  to  which 
our  emigrants  might  move?  A  good  many 
of  the  natural  resources  are  of  a  sort  that 
will  soon  be  gone,  we  are  dolefully  told. 
If  it  is  true  that  the  oil  of  the  earth  will 


138 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


be  burned  up  in  fifty  years,  all  the  more 
reason  why  we  should  not  have  a  war  over 
oil.  What  sane  human  being  wants  to 
fight  for  material  that  will  not  last  fifty 
years?  Better  turn  our  wits  toward  the 
search  for  some  more  durable  forms  of 
force. 


Still  another  explainer  of  war  tells  us 
that  we  are  so  made  that  we  resent  insults 
to  the  flag,  that  we  have  a  delicate  sense 
of  national  honor,  that  we  simply  will  not 
stand  by  and  see,  not  ourselves,  but  the 
national  group  to  which  we  belong  in¬ 
sulted.  There  is  no  doubt  as  to  the  prev¬ 
alence  of  national  “touchiness”;  but  here, 
again,  the  question  is  as  to  whether  we 
are  ever  to  be  socially  sane.  If  a  man 
becomes  really  a  man,  there  are  some  ac¬ 
tions  which  cannot  insult  him.  What 
scholar  cares  what  the  ignoramus  says 
about  him?  What  gentleman  is  disturbed 
by  the  gibes  or  grimaces  of  a  buffoon? 
What  Christian  looks  with  anything  but 
pity  upon  evil-spirited  thrusts  at  himself? 
If  such  attack  leads  to  possibility  of  actual 
harm,  we  are  dealing  with  another  prob- 


CAN  PATRIOTISM  BE  SAVED?  139 


lem;  but  we  are  now  talking  of  that  realm 
of  slight  to  national  honor  which  has  fig¬ 
ured  so  much  in  begetting  war,  or  at  least 
in  fanning  the  war  spirit.  We  are  facing 
again  the  plain  question  as  to  whether  men 
in  groups  can  attain  to  the  excellence  of 
men  as  individuals.  If  an  individual  were 
to  try  to  move  in  good  society  and  keep 
stress  always  on  the  rights  and  etiquette 
due  him,  as  nations  do  in  their  attitude 
toward  one  another,  he  would  be  laughed 
out  of  society. 

We  don’t  seem,  though,  to  be  getting  far 
toward  a  Christian  solution.  Suppose  we 
just  take  seriously  the  idea  of  the  gospel 
as  to  the  worth  of  human  lives,  not  Amer¬ 
ican,  or  English,  or  French  lives  merely, 
but  human  lives  everywhere.  Let  us  try 
not  to  be  literalists  in  our  gospel  interpre¬ 
tation,  but  let  us  aim  to  keep  to  the  spirit 
of  the  gospel  as  a  whole.  Let  us  hold  be¬ 
fore  ourselves  the  plain  meaning  of  the 
Word — that  men  are  of  such  importance 
that  though  they  are  sinners  and  blun¬ 
derers,  Christ  died  for  them,  and  died  for 
them,  not  just  as  a  prophet  suffering  on 
his  own  account,  but  died  for  them  to 


140 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


show  how  the  Christlike  God  feels  toward 
them.  Then  the  question  is  as  to  whether 
we  can  reconcile  killing  men  with  any  im¬ 
plication  of  Christ’s  thought  about  men. 
It  may  be  fairly  argued  in  the  case  of  an 
individual  person  here  and  there  that  he 
has  become  so  brutalized  by  his  own  bru¬ 
talities  that  brute  force  is  all  he  under¬ 
stands.  He  must  be  restrained,  locked  up, 
kept  off  the  streets  where  normal  human 
beings  move.  Who,  in  heaven’s  name, 
could  bring  such  an  indictment  as  that 
against  a  whole  nation? 

The  conscientious  objector,  to  whom  I 
shall  give  much  space  later  in  this  chapter, 
is  annoying  to  me  because  of  his  literalism. 
If  we  are  to  take  part  of  the  words  of  Jesus 
literally,  we  have  to  take  them  all  liter¬ 
ally;  and  then  we  get  into  trouble.  When 
the  conscientious  objector  says  he  would 
not  defend  his  own  children  against  out¬ 
raging  assailants,  we  know  he  is  raving. 
There  is  no  need  of  raving,  for  the  logic 
of  his  position  does  not  call  for  such  ex¬ 
tremes.  If  he  will  forget  his  literalism  and 
lay  hold  of  the  spiritual  essential  of  the 
gospel,  he  can  stand  against  war  on  the 


CAN  PATRIOTISM  BE  SAVED?  141 


ground  of  the  utter  impossibility  of  recon¬ 
ciling  it  with  any  such  thought  of  human 
beings  and  human  life  as  that  which  filled 
the  mind  and  moved  the  heart  of  Jesus. 
There  is  no  way  of  sanctifying  war.  There 
is  no  possibility  of  uniforming  Christ  in 
khaki.  We  can  say  truly  that  there  are 
times  when  the  Christian  falls  short  of  the 
Christ  ideal  as  to  war,  or  is  borne  down 
short  of  that  ideal  by  public  sentiment;  but 
we  cannot  say  that  he  is  following  a  khaki- 
clad  Christ.  Better  admit  inability  to  live 
up  to  the  ideal  than  to  lower  the  ideal.  It 
is  not  only  that  war  kills  the  bodies  of  men 
— it  poisons  and  kills  the  mind  by  perver¬ 
sions  from  the  truth.  The  objector  is 
right,  not  when  he  calls  for  literal  obe¬ 
dience  to  a  literally  minded  Christ,  but 
when  he  speaks  in  the  spirit  of  Christ  for 
the  sanctity  of  human  lives  everywhere. 
Men  for  whom  Christ  died  must  not  be 
killed  by  poison  gas  or  bayonet  thrust; 
they  must  not  be  lied  to;  they  must  not 
be  plunged  into  hate.  I  was  just  as  anx¬ 
ious  as  anyone  to  see  the  cause  of  the 
Allies  prevail  in  the  last  war.  I  now  cast 
no  stones  at  anyone.  Still,  I  say  that 


142 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


since  we  had  to  fall  short  of  the  Christian 
ideal  and  go  to  war,  we  may  just  as  well 
face  the  spiritual  consequences  of  that  war 
— an  emphasis  on  propaganda  so  strong 
that  it  may  be  years  before  we  get  back 
the  power  to  see  straight;  a  distortion  of 
the  faculties  of  spiritual  balance  so  severe 
that  it  may  take  us  a  long,  long  time  to 
judge  national  issues  aright;  a  blurring 
over  our  finer  discernments  so  complete 
that  only  the  ruder  shocks  disturb  our 
minds. 

The  path  of  the  salvation  of  patriotism 
lies  not  past  the  victories  of  militarism. 
Salvation  for  a  nation  is  essentially  the 
same  as  salvation  for  an  individual.  It 
comes  out  of  repentance  for  sin;  out  of  a 
desire  for  new  birth,  for  new  life  following 
the  commandments  of  God  and  walking 
from  henceforth  in  his  holy  ways.  “Thou 
shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself”  is  the 
second  great  commandment.  Evidently,  a 
man’s  love  for  his  neighbor  cannot  be  im¬ 
portant  if  he  has  no  respect  for  himself. 
Genuine  self-regard  among  neighbors  and 
nations  ought  to  go  hand  in  hand  with 
regard  for  others. 


CAN  PATRIOTISM  BE  SAVED?  143 


This  implies,  does  it  not,  that  there  must 
be  some  world  organization  in  which  na¬ 
tions  live  peacefully  together?  It  certainly 
does — but  it  implies,  before  organization, 
the  change  of  heart  among  nations  which 
must  amount  to  veritable  regeneration.  It 
means  Christian  love,  not,  indeed,  in  a 
chiefly  emotional  or  affectional  sense,  but 
in  a  willingness  on  the  part  of  one  nation 
to  look  at  and  appreciate  other  nations, 
appreciate  them  at  their  points  of  strength, 
rejoice  in  their  ability  to  make  each  its 
own  unique  contribution  to  the  life  of  the 
whole.  It  implies  on  the  part  of  every 
nation  a  willingness  to  hold  its  own  geo¬ 
graphical  and  industrial  and  cultural  ex¬ 
cellence  under  a  sense  of  trusteeship  for  all 
men — thinking  of  men  always  in  human 
terms. 

The  noblest  tract  on  patriotism,  espe¬ 
cially  international  patriotism,  that  I  know 
is  the  book  of  Jonah.  Jonah  was  a  Jew 
filled  with  a  consciousness  of  the  superior¬ 
ity  of  his  people.  As  a  member  of  the 
chosen  race  he  had  such  sense  of  his  own 
consequence  that  he  dared  talk  back  to 
God.  He  would  not  go  and  preach  to 


144 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


Nineveh,  the  capital  of  his  deadliest  ene¬ 
mies.  To  escape  going  to  Nineveh  he 
would  sail  away  off  to  Tarshish,  in  the 
west  somewhere;  for,  according  to  Jonah’s 
patriotism,  the  eyes  of  the  Lord  were  so 
focused  on  Israel  that  they  would  not  see 
Jonah  in  Tarshish.  A  storm  arises  on  the 
sea  and  the  accusing  lot  falls  on  Jonah. 
He  is  a  good  deal  of  a  man,  admits  his 
guilt,  and  asks  that  he  be  thrown  over¬ 
board.  Notice  that  he  makes  no  change 
in  his  thought  about  Nineveh.  He  might 
have  caused  the  Lord  to  stop  the  storm  if 
he  had  promised  to  go  to  Nineveh;  but  he 
preferred  drowning  to  going  to  Nineveh. 
Next  the  heathen  sailors  appear  in  fine 
light,  even  as  compared  with  one  of  the 
chosen  race,  for  they  row  hard  to  get  to 
land  to  save  Jonah,  who  has  already  cost 
them  all  their  cargo  and  much  of  their 
ship’s  gear.  It  was  of  no  avail.  Jonah 
had  to  go  over  the  side  of  the  vessel.  And 
he  went,  expecting  to  sink  straight  to  the 
bottom,  and  glad  to  sink  rather  than  go  to 
Nineveh.  There  was  no  way  of  escape, 
however,  from  Nineveh;  and  Jonah  finally 
went — preaching  to  Ninevites  with  dis- 


CAN  PATRIOTISM  BE  SAVED?  145 


gust,  and  beholding  with  disgust  their 
turning  to  the  Lord  in  repentance.  One 
privilege,  he  thought,  would  in  a  measure 
compensate  him  for  the  humiliation  of 
being  in  Nineveh  at  all.  He  would  see 
Nineveh  destroyed.  He  would  see  the  fire 
fall  from  heaven  and  hear  the  enemies  of 
the  Lord  scream  in  the  terrors  of  death. 
When  it  appeared  at  last  that  the  city  was 
not  to  be  destroyed,  Jonah’s  heart  was 
broken.  Then  comes  one  of  the  loftiest 
passages  in  all  literature:  “Should  not  I 
have  compassion  on  six-score  thousand 
souls  who  know  not  their  right  hand  from 
their  left?”  Who  were  these  souls?  Any 
commentator  will  tell  us  that  these  one 
hundred  and  twenty  thousand  persons 
could  only  have  been  children  in  the 
streets  of  Nineveh — ignorant  and  innocent 
of  Assyrian  cruelty.  Jonah’s  thought  did 
not  include  young  Ninevites  in  the  cate¬ 
gory  of  children.  To  him  Ninevite  babies 
were  cub-tigers. 

So  paints  the  Old  Testament  the  por¬ 
trait  of  Jonah  the  Jew,  rightly  loyal  to  his 
country;  Jonah  the  patriot,  who  had  to 
learn  that  the  truth  of  God,  which  was  the 


146 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


peculiar  glory  of  Israel,  was  to  be  held  in 
trusteeship  even  for  Nineveh;  Jonah,  the 
man,  who  had  to  come  to  see  that  he  must 
think  even  of  hated  Nineveh  in  human 
terms,  the  terms  of  innocent  children  play¬ 
ing  in  the  streets.  If  we  could  get  our  in¬ 
ternational  relations  to-day  as  far  along  as 
the  teachings  of  Jonah  the  practical  adjust¬ 
ments  between  nations  would  follow  of  them¬ 
selves. 


Let  us,  however,  not  stop  with  Jonah, 
but  come  close  to  the  concrete  facts  of 
this  year  of  our  Lord,  1923. 

We  have  made  some  substantial  gains  in 
dealing  with  the  war  problem,  the  most 
substantial  being  that  war  now  has  few 
outright  defenders.  It  is  not  far  in  the 
past  that  men  like  Admiral  Mahan  were 
virtually  glorifying  war  and  exalting  the 
warrior  type  of  human  being.  That  day 
is  past,  even  in  the  professional  military 
circles.  It  is  even  no  longer  sacrilege  to 
point  out  the  limitations  of  the  professional 
military  intellect.  An  officer  of  high  rank 
in  the  American  army  made  the  suggestion 
a  few  years  ago  that  the  unarmed  condi- 


CAN  PATRIOTISM  BE  SAVED?  147 


tion  of  our  Northern  frontier  is  fraught 
with  peril  to  the  United  States.  Every¬ 
body  saw  in  this  merely  an  instance  of  that 
aberration  which  comes  to  any  intellect 
debauched  in  overspecialization.  For  the 
most  part  the  professional  soldier  is  slow 
to  call  for  war,  certainly  slower  than  our 
half-baked  civilian  jingoes  and  imperialists. 

While,  however,  there  is  wide  agreement 
on  the  undesirableness  of  war  as  such,  and 
charitable  amusement  when  even  a  mili¬ 
tary  authority  begins  to  talk  about  affairs 
outside  his  sphere,  it  takes  the  hero  to 
stand  against  a  particular  war.  It  is  for 
this  reason  that  we  shall  have  to  make 
more  and  more  place  in  our  consideration 
for  the  one  type  of  man  in  dead  earnest 
in  the  anti-war  warfare — for  the  conscien¬ 
tious  objector  against  taking  the  life  of 
men  in  any  war.  May  1  say  at  the  outset 
that  I  am  not  myself  a  conscientious  ob¬ 
jector  as  the  term  is  technically  used.  I 
say  this,  not  with  anything  like  pride  but 
with  something  like  regret.  I  am  not  of 
the  stuff  of  which  that  type  of  martyr  is 
made.  When  a  young  man  arises  full  of 
the  heat  of  a  sincere  crusade  against  war 


148 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


my  feeling  toward  him  is  that  of  admira¬ 
tion  for  a  quality  of  moral  genius  I  am  not 
likely  to  attain  unto.  If  war  is  ever  done 
away  with,  it  will  be  because  the  view  of 
the  conscientious  objector — like  that  of  the 
abolitionist  in  antislavery  movements — will 
become  substantially  the  nucleus  around 
which  the  more  moderate  sentiment  finally 
crystallizes,  the  view,  namely,  that  human 
life  is  so  inherently  sacred  that  it  must  not 
be  poured  out  upon  battlefields.  No  argu¬ 
ment  will  in  the  end  avail  against  that 
insight.  No  argument  thus  far  adduced 
against  that  argument  has  had  anything 
more  than  mere  expediency  value.  To  say 
that  the  conscientious  objector  should  not 
accept  the  protection  of  a  society  for  which 
he  will  not  fight  would  be  funny  if  it  were 
not  so  sad.  A  man  who  wTill  submit  to 
ridicule  and  physical  indignity  and  im¬ 
prisonment  for  the  sake  of  an  admittedly 
transcendent  ideal  is  fighting  for  society  at 
least  as  truly  as  the  man  who  kills  his 
fellow  men  in  battle.  It  is  about  time? 
also,  that  we  took  account  of  the  fact  that 
there  is  back  of  every  war  what  a  sugges¬ 
tive  English  writer — one  of  the  editors  of 


t 


CAN  PATRIOTISM  BE  SAVED?  149 


the  Manchester  Guardian — has  called  the 
unconscientious  objector,  the  coward  call¬ 
ing  loudly  for  war  and  objecting  to  any 
risk  for  his  own  skin,  searching  for  safe 
quarters  from  which  to  urge  others  to 
death. 

It  is  in  objection  to  war  that  spiritual 
heroism  burns  bright,  for  there  the  hero¬ 
ism  runs  substantial  risks.  The  reaction¬ 
ary  has  an  excuse  in  dealing  with  such 
exalted  spirits  as  sincerely  conscientious 
objectors  for  going  to  any  length.  He  can 
even  persuade  himself  that  in  putting  such 
dangerous  lunatics,  as  he  thinks  of  them, 
out  of  the  way  he  is  doing  God’s  service. 
Conscientious  objection  of  the  extreme  type 
is  for  the  most  part  outside  of  the  church, 
and  crusade  against  it  easily  secures  the 
blessing  of  official  ecclesiastics.  The  ground 
of  forgiveness  for  such  ecclesiastics  is  prob¬ 
ably  that  they  know  not  what  they  do. 
They  are  persecuting  those  who,  impractical 
as  they  may  be,  are  spiritually  akin  to  the 
early  Christians  who  would  not  worship 
the  Roman  emperor  or  join  the  emperor’s 
legions.  It  is  logically  inconsistent  and  yet 
morally  sound  to  admit  that  the  conscien- 


150 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


tious  objector  is  foolish  in  face  of  what 
happens  in  this  world  to  disarmed  peoples 
like  the  Armenians;  and  to  insist  that  the 
conscientious  objector’s  stress  on  the  sacred¬ 
ness  of  human  life  is  the  way  out.  To  say 
that  slavery  could  not  be  put  away  except 
by  a  moderate-minded  Lincoln  is  not  to 
minimize  the  value  of  an  uncompromising 
Garrison.  It  would  be  presumptuous  indeed 
to  urge  young  men  to  stand  up  against  a 
war-mad  state,  especially  when  he  who 
urges  cannot  himself  see  his  way  clear  to 
make  such  a  stand.  When,  however,  those 
who  conscientiously  object  do  thus  stand, 
they  make  life  more  Christian  for  all  of  us 
whose  consciences  are  not  so  acute,  or 
whose  minds  see  practical,  weighty  objec¬ 
tions  more  alarmedly,  or  whose  hearts  are 
bowed  down  by  the  fear  of  involving  in 
hardship  friends  and  relatives  for  whom  we 
feel  heavy  obligations.  If  such  a  saint 
arises,  then,  in  any  of  our  churches,  let  us 
thank  God  for  the  reproach  and  sting  and 
questioning  which  he  brings  to  those  of  us 
who  sincerely  cannot  now  follow  with  him. 
He  helps  keep  Christianity  Christian — pos¬ 
sibly  he  points  the  way  also  to  a  deep 


CAN  PATRIOTISM  BE  SAVED?  151 


Christian  experience.  Those  who  deal  with 
idealists  of  this  type,  and  know  how  to 
distinguish  between  the  shirker  and  the 
crack-brained  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
martyrs  and  saints  on  the  other,  tell  us 
that  these  objecting  saints  attain  inwardly 
to  a  peace  that  passeth  understanding — at 
least  passing  the  understanding  of  the  jingo 
ecclesiastic  and  the  compromising  priest. 
Of  course  that  is  not  saying  much,  for 
neither  jingo  nor  compromiser  ever  under¬ 
stands  anything  worth  understanding. 
Jesus  hinted  at  an  understanding  of  the 
prophets  reached  by  enduring  persecution 
like  theirs.  A  man  who  will  denounce  in¬ 
ternational  inhumanity  to-day  with  the 
directness  with  which  Amos  and  Isaiah 
attacked  such  brutality  in  their  day  will 
learn  more  about  Amos  and  Isaiah  in  one 
week  after  his  outcry  than  he  will  learn 
from  commentaries  in  a  lifetime.  The 
man  who  speaks  for  human  value  in  the 
face  of  the  mob’s  cry  “Crucify  him!”  will 
enter  more  deeply  into  an  understanding 
of  the  spirit  of  the  cross  than  by  the  study 
of  libraries  of  theology.  We  shall  not  all 
be  absolutist  objectors  to  war.  Differences 


1 52 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


of  all  sorts  prevent.  Society  might  go  to 
pieces  if  any  absolute  movement  absolutely 
captured  everybody,  for  one  absolutism  in¬ 
volves  others.  On  the  other  hand,  society 
would  rot  if  it  were  not  for  the  salt  of 
absolute  protest  against  international  evil. 
Salt  is  a  type  of  peacemaker — a  symbol  of 
reconciliation.  There  is  po  use  of  talking 
of  living  together  if  life  itself  is  not  worth 
living.  Life  is  not  worth  living  with  a  war 
every  decade  or  two. 

After  all,  the  conscientious  objector  may 
have  more  common  sense  than  the  rest  of 
us.  It  seems  absurd  when  the  objector 
tells  us  he  won’t  fight  and  that  the  way  to 
stop  war  is  to  stop  fighting.  That  is  too 
simple  to  be  a  divine  inspiration.  It  is  the 
simplicity  of  lunacy.  Is  it?  There  is  a 
tradition  from  the  old  days  of  Methodist 
frontier  circuiting-riding  of  a  preacher  who 
once  started  to  swim  the  Ohio  River  on  an 
errand  of  mercy.  When  he  was  nearly 
across  his  strength  gave  out  and  he  felt  he 
must  drown.  He  commended  his  soul  to 
God  and  said  farewell  to  the  world.  Then 
the  ridiculous  thought  flashed  into  his  mind, 
“Better  let  down  and  see  how  deep  the 


CAN  PATRIOTISM  BE  SAVED?  153 


water  is.”  It  seemed  almost  sacrilege  to 
entertain  such  a  thought  after  his  mood  of 
prayer,  but  he  let  down.  The  water  was 
only  five  feet  deep,  and  he  walked  ashore. 
At  first  he  felt  that  the  Lord  had  almost 
trifled  with  him  after  the  exalted  mood  of 
submission  to  the  divine  will,  but  returning 
good  sense  showed  that  the  practical  im¬ 
pulse  was  a  flash  of  divine  wisdom.  It 
may  be  that  the  absolutist’s  call  to  the 
world  to  end  war  by  stopping  fighting  is  as 
divine  as  the  old-time  preacher’s  impulse  to 
cease  struggling  against  the  waves  and  walk 
ashore.  In  any  event,  the  absolutist  is  the 
yeast  of  the  peace  movement.  Yeast  is  not 
over-palatable  itself,  but  it  makes  other 
things  palatable.  Antiwar  movements  are 
likely  to  flatten  down  into  dead  dough 
without  the  ferment  of  the  absolutist’s  in¬ 
sistence  upon  the  inviolable  sacredness  of 
human  life. 


Actual  physical  warfare,  however,  is  not 
the  only  form  of  conflict  between  nations, 
and  the  reign  of  good  will  and  of  peace 
will  not  necessarily  have  arrived  as  soon  as 
men  shall  have  beaten  their  swords  into 


154 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


plowshares  and  their  spears  into  pruning 
hooks.  Plowshares  and  pruning  hooks  can 
be  quite  as  fatal  instruments  of  warfare 
between  nations  as  swords  and  spears — 
and  that,  too,  when  the  plowshares  are 
busy  in  the  furrows  and  the  pruning  hooks 
in  the  vineyards.  Sometimes  the  man  in 
the  furrow  says  he  cannot  plow  unless  he 
is  protected  by  a  man  with  a  gun,  as  in 
the  old  frontier  days,  when  the  plowman 
was  preceded  by  a  man  with  a  rifle  who 
walked  at  the  horse’s  head  on  the  lookout 
for  Indians.  Those  days  have  indeed 
passed,  but  there  are  still  tillers  of  the  soil 
who  say  that  they  cannot  run  their  fur¬ 
rows  unless  the  man  with  the  gun  will 
keep  open  world  markets  for  their  grain. 
So  that  it  comes  about  that  often  the  man 
behind  the  gun  is  the  man  with  the  plow. 
Let  us  trust  that  this  day  is  passing.  It 
means  a  violation  of  that  rational  good 
sense  of  which  I  spoke  in  an  earlier  para¬ 
graph. 

Suppose  that  a  new  day  dawns  and  that 
the  nations  actually  learn  physical  war  no 
more.  Are  we  now  able  to  live  together  as 
nations?  Not  necessarily,  for  economic 


CAN  PATRIOTISM  BE  SAVED?  155 


warfare  through  exclusive  tariffs  and  other 
internationally  restrictive  measures  may 
keep  burning  the  spirit  of  hatred  between 
nations.  Since  the  days  of  Jesus  we  have 
heard  that  hatred  keeps  men  out  of  the 
Kingdom,  rather  than  actual  blows  with 
fists  or  clubs.  I  see  no  way  to  permanent 
peace  between  nations  except  as  the  na¬ 
tions  learn  to  use  their  economic  powers 
not  as  weapons  of  warfare  but  as  bonds  of 
union  in  service. 

Here  someone  breaks  out  that  all  this 
means  the  doctrine  that  government  is  to 
interfere  more  and  more  in  business, 
whereas  business  ought  to  be  allowed  to 
develop  according  to  its  own  laws — laws 
with  which  we  trifle  at  our  peril.  The 
objector  avows  that  what  I  am  now  saying 
trends  in  the  direction  of  socialism. 

Will  the  objector  please  keep  his  seat  for 
a  minute  while  we  look  a  few  facts  in  the 
face!  The  question  to-day  is  not  whether 
government  shall  more  and  more  concern 
itself  with  business,  but  whether  govern¬ 
ment’s  concern  shall  be  in  behalf  of  this  or 
that  special  interest,  or  in  behalf  of  the 
widest  human  interests.  It  may,  indeed, 


156 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


be  according  to  the  American  tradition 
that  government  shall  interfere  as  little  as 
possible  with  business,  but  it  has  been  the 
American  practice  since  the  days  of  the 
Civil  War  that  business  shall  control  gov¬ 
ernment  as  much  as  possible.  How  de¬ 
lightful  to  hear  the  shouter  for  high  tariffs 
tell  us  that  government  should  not  inter¬ 
fere  with  economic  movements!  Let  us 
make  all  concession  to  the  upholder  of 
tariffs.  Let  us  concede  that  the  horror  of 
the  Cobden  Free  Trade  School  at  the  fos¬ 
tering  of  American  industries  by  protective 
tariffs  was  ill-considered,  that  America  did 
wisely  to  build  up  her  own  industries  rather 
than  to  fulfill  the  role  of  agricultural  com¬ 
missary  to  manufacturing  England.  Make 
the  case  for  the  tariff  just  as  strong  as  we 
can,  there  is  nevertheless  no  getting  away 
from  the  fact  that  a  tariff  between  nations 
is  an  interference  by  government  in  busi¬ 
ness,  an  interference  with  the  free  working 
of  economic  forces,  an  interference  in  prin¬ 
ciple  just  as  radical,  as  far  as  it  goes,  as  any 
economic  expedient  that  socialism  proposes. 
The  high-tariff  protectionist  is  the  last  man 
who  has  any  right  to  protest  against  so- 


CAN  PATRIOTISM  BE  SAVED?  157 


cialism  because  socialism  brings  governmen¬ 
tal  activities  into  business.  Whether  the 
protest  continues  or  not,  government  will 
more  and  more  concern  itself  with  business. 
Our  hope  is  that  the  concern  will  take  more 
and  more  into  account  the  moral  outcome 
of  international  financial  adjustments. 

Our  hope,  we  repeat,  is  that  the  adjust¬ 
ments  will  be  more  and  more  in  terms  of 
all-inclusive  human  welfare,  ruled  by  inter¬ 
national  agreement,  backed  up  by  an  in¬ 
creasing  international  sentiment  on  the 
part  of  the  mass  of  the  voting  population. 
We  talk  truly  of  capitalism  as  an  interna¬ 
tional  force.  Why  not  talk  about  labor 
also — in  the  widest  sense — as  an  interna¬ 
tional  force?  The  ordinary  “plain  man”  of 
Abraham  Lincoln,  especially  if  he  be  a 
toiler  for  his  daily  bread,  can  be  depended 
upon,  once  he  is  informed,  to  act  with 
quite  as  much  soundness  of  international 
judgment  as  the  capitalist.  The  plain  man 
is  quite  as  likely  to  respond  to  an  appeal 
for  sacrifice  as  the  capitalist.  In  the  days 
of  our  Civil  War  the  Lancashire  cotton 
workers  voluntarily  went  down  into  un¬ 
complaining  poverty  to  sustain  the  North- 


158 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


ern  cause,  which  they  felt  to  be  the  cause 
of  free  labor  the  world  over. 

These  suggestions  of  unselfish,  even  sac¬ 
rificial,  international  action  are  not  desper¬ 
ate  and  crazy  when  viewed  in  the  light  of 
what  actually  goes  on  in  smaller  circles. 
As  an  illustration  take  the  differential 
freight  rate  on  railroads  between  the  grain 
fields  of  the  West  and  the  cities  of  the 
Atlantic  seaboard.  For  years  it  was  true — 
perhaps  it  is  still  true — that  Boston  and 
Baltimore  were  granted  advantages  in 
freight  rates  as  over  against  New  York,  so 
that  they  might  not  be  too  far  left  behind 
in  commercial  competition.  More  than 
once  I  have  heard  New  York  business  lead¬ 
ers  declare  against  this  differential  as  an 
interference  with  natural  economic  move¬ 
ment.  Possibly  the  railroad  leaders  who 
devised  the  differential  scheme  were  not 
moved  by  altrustic  ideals.  Perhaps  the 
railroads  benefited.  Nevertheless,  the 
scheme  was  in  the  direction  of  sound  social 
policy.  Boston  and  Baltimore  are  estab¬ 
lished  cities  of  immense  social  value.  The 
differential  was  and  is  socially  justified  as 
lending  them  support,  even  if  the  support 


CAN  PATRIOTISM  BE  SAVED?  159 


in  part  has  nullified  New  York’s  natural 
geographic  advantage,  even  if,  in  effect,  it 
has  partially  closed  up  the  Mohawk  Gap. 
So  with  many  sound  schemes  of  railroad 
pooling  and  centralization.  The  stronger 
roads  have  to  bear  a  share  of  the  burden  of 
the  weak,  with  no  prospect  of  adequately 
remunerative  financial  return,  for  the  gen¬ 
eral  material  welfare. 

All  I  am  trying  to  say  is  that  economic 
forces  are  daily  interfered  with  for  a  social 
result.  Moreover,  American  national  de¬ 
velopment  would  not  have  been  possible  if 
a  group  of  States  like  those  of  the  American 
nation  had  not  come  into  practical  coopera¬ 
tion  rather  than  competition  with  one  an¬ 
other.  There  is  rivalry  between  differing 
States  of  our  nation,  no  doubt,  but  the  ele¬ 
ment  of  cooperation  is  stronger  than  the 
element  of  competition  between  them,  and 
cooperation  implies  a  sharing  of  losses  as 
well  as  of  gains. 

I  do  not  think  we  need  go  as  far  as  an 
actual  merging  of  nations  to  put  ourselves 
in  the  path  toward  supplanting  interna¬ 
tional  competition,  competition  which  may 
be  a  form  of  war  with  nations  almost  lit- 


160 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


erally  killing  one  another,  by  a  cooperation 
which  is  a  form  of  national  living  together. 
Take  an  extreme  illustration,  which  is,  after 
all,  not  beyond  the  range  of  conceivability. 
Here  is  a  tropical  country  producing  a 
given  kind  of  vegetable,  the  sale  of  whose 
product  gives  that  country  its  only  chance 
toward  economic  prosperity.  Botanists  and 
chemists  discover  that  with  the  aid  of  a 
tariff  that  tropical  product  can  be  produced 
and  sold  at  a  lower  price  in  a  temperate 
than  in  the  tropical  clime.  Is  it  beyond 
reason  to  fancy  that  a  majority  of  voters 
may  say,  “No,  we  will  not  aid  in  the  arti¬ 
ficial  production  of  a  plant  which  gives 
millions  of  people  in  another  land  their 
only  chance  at  adequate  human  life”?  It 
might  even  come  to  pass  that  the  con¬ 
suming  public  would  refuse  to  buy  pro¬ 
ducts  at  a  cheaper  price  than  they  could 
be  produced  by  such  tropical  fruit-growers, 
for  the  sake  of  giving  the  tropical  land  its 
chance.  Within  more  or  less  limited  cir¬ 
cles  the  natural  laws  of  trade — buy  as 
cheaply  as  you  can  and  sell  as  dearly  as  you 
can — are  being  set  at  naught  all  the  time. 

Of  course,  all  this  implies  some  world 


CAN  PATRIOTISM  BE  SAVED?  161 


organization,  but  it  does  not  necessarily 
imply  a  world-state.  To  put  such  a  scheme 
into  effect  we  do  not  have  to  wait  till  the 
millennium.  The  organization  of  the 
United  States  into  a  federation  under  the 
Constitution  at  once  spread  peace  over  a 
wider  area  of  the  world’s  surface  than  had 
ever  been  known  up  to  the  time  of  the 
organization,  and  the  federation  was  not  at 
the  beginning  the  tight  texture  it  is  to-day. 
The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  may, 
indeed,  have  been  the  greatest  work  struck 
off  at  a  given  instant  by  the  human  mind, 
in  the  words  of  Gladstone,  or  it  may  have 
been  at  the  outset  a  contrivance  to  protect 
property  interests,  in  the  words  of  some 
present-day  critics,  but  it  was  a  step  for¬ 
ward  in  any  event,  a  step  which  can  con¬ 
ceivably  be  paralleled  in  some  organization 
born  of  respect  for  human  interests  on  a 
world-wide  scale,  an  organization,  rudimen¬ 
tary  at  first,  which  will  not  put  any  in¬ 
superable  strain  on  the  world’s  constructive 
intellect,  certainly  no  more  strain  than  that 
involved  in  carrying  out  to  wider  applica¬ 
tion  a  few  international  principles  already 
in  actual  use. 


162 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


A  final  comment  on  all  the  above  is  that 
just  as  economic  forces  are  a  sort  of  second 
line  in  actual  warfare,  so  the  public  opinion 
of  various  nations  is  mobilized  in  war  also 
as  the  determining  power.  War  starts  with 
the  clash  of  arms.  The  clash  of  arms  set¬ 
tles  down  to  a  physical  deadlock  in  trenches 
while  the  economic  forces  of  the  fighting 
nations  wear  themselves  out.  Still  the  end 
of  the  war  does  not  come  until  the  spirit  of 
one  fighting  group,  or  of  all  the  groups,  is 
broken.  The  battle  is  in  the  end  that  of 
public  opinion  against  public  opinion. 

This  being  so,  it  is  the  duty  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  to  bless  all  the  forms  of  interna¬ 
tionalism  that  help  on  to  understanding 
between  nations.  While  some  scope  must 
be  left  to  the  deliberate  attempt  to  make 
the  various  peoples  see  eye  to  eye,  we 
come  back  again  and  again  to  our  chief 
thesis — the  result  can  be  better  reached  in 
uniting  in  common  world-wide  efforts. 
Hence  the  duty  of  furthering  all  forms  of 
international  cooperation  to  worthy  ends. 
If  the  nations  say:  “Go  to,  now  let  us 
journey  each  to  the  land  of  others  and  all 
cultivate  one  another’s  good  will,”  we  shall 


CAN  PATRIOTISM  BE  SAVED?  163 


not  get  much  farther  than  in  similar  ven¬ 
tures  in  personal  life.  If  there  are  common 
tasks  into  which  we  can  throw  ourselves, 
we  may  find  ourselves  together  without 
much  raising  of  the  question  as  to  union. 
International  combat  against  disease  and 
against  various  evil  traffickings  does  some¬ 
thing;  international  finance,  something;  in¬ 
ternational  labor  agreements  and  confer¬ 
ences,  more  still;  international  science, 
something;  international  churches  could  be 
of  immense  help  if  they  would  cut  out  the 
cancer  of  ecclesiastical  imperialism.  “Na¬ 
tions!  Love  one  another!”  This  sounds 
fine,  but  it  is  about  as  potent  as  to  tell 
two  human  beings  to  love  one  another.  If 
a  match-maker,  set  on  getting  a  young  man 
and  young  woman  to  loving  one  another, 
were  to  preach,  “Love  one  another,”  he 
would  probably  drive  the  two  apart.  So  in 
larger  affairs.  If  a  common  task  is  set 
before  nations  the  mutual  regard  may  come 
of  itself. 

Is  there  not  danger  that  through  all  this 
preaching  of  international  community  of 
feeling  the  distinctiveness  of  different  na¬ 
tions  may  die  out?  Public  opinion  in  any 


164 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


one  nation  is  a  terrible  leveling  engine  when 
it  takes  to  driving  ahead  like  a  continent¬ 
wide  steam  roller.  If  we  had  an  interna¬ 
tional  public  opinion  would  not  all  liberal 
social  ideas  be  crushed  in  the  bud?  Would 
not  the  separate  nations  stagnate?  It  is 
hard  to  believe  that  this  objection  is  seri¬ 
ously  urged.  Are  wars  and  the  rumors  of 
war  between  nations  spurs  to  social  prog¬ 
ress?  Is  it  not  true  that  the  oldest  trick 
in  the  reactionary’s  box  of  tricks  is  to 
raise  with  ridiculous  frequency  the  cry  of 
war,  that  the  nations  may  be  distracted 
from  social  reform?  If  we  had  even  a  loose 
confederation  of  nations,  there  would  soon 
be  enough  mutual  understanding  among  the 
groups  so  that  social  experiments  might  be 
better  made  than  now.  No  one  wants 
uniformity  among  nations.  If  one  nation 
is  prompted  to  try  out  a  new  social  order, 
the  new  order  will  come  more  quickly  to 
success  or  failure  in  a  society  of  nations 
mutually  respecting  one  another  than  in  a 
society  where  the  tendency  up  and  down 
can  be  stopped  by  war  scares.  One  factor 
in  preventing  the  world’s  finding  out  what 
Bolshevism  actually  is,  by  the  course  of  its 


CAN  PATRIOTISM  RE  SAVED?  165 


own  natural  unfolding,  has  been  that  all 
the  curses  of  Lenin  and  Trotzky  against 
capitalism  have  seemed  to  Russians  to  be 
warranted  by  the  attitude  of  capitalistic 
nations  toward  Russia. 

On  the  whole,  public  opinion  gives  a 
pretty  good  account  of  itself  when  con¬ 
fronted  with  the  possibility  of  social  change. 
If  the  propagandists  can  be  brought  to  tell 
the  truth,  public  opinion  is  inclined  to  give 
social  and  political  experiments  their 
chance.  In  a  cooperative  group  of  nations 
there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  the 
separate  nations  would  get  a  better  chance 
to  be  themselves  and  to  live  their  own  lives 
than  they  do  in  to-day’s  fancied  independ¬ 
ence.  Possibly  the  best  patriot  in  the  end 
is  the  one  who  shouts  for  all  the  other 
nations  as  well  as  for  his  own. 

Patriotism  can  be  saved  only  on  condi¬ 
tion  that  it  be  led  to  Christian  rebirth, 
birth  out  of  the  world  of  selfishness  into 
the  world  of  service.  We  need  as  Chris¬ 
tians  to  remind  ourselves  that  we  worship 
a  covenant-God,  a  God  whose  nature  is 
Christlike  indeed,  but  whose  Christlikeness 
is  fundamentally  moral.  God  is  under  no 


166 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


obligation  continually  to  bless  a  fighting 
world.  If  the  people  cannot  learn  to  live 
together,  there  is  no  fatalistic  optimism 
which  calls  for  the  continuance  of  the  inane 
spectacle  of  warfare.  After  the  race  has 
killed  off  its  best  members,  evolution  might 
conceivably  run  backward  and  downhill, 
with  the  light  of  human  life  finally  sput¬ 
tering  and  flickering  out,  to  the  vast  relief 
of  all  intelligences  in  the  universe.  We  do 
not  expect  the  resources  of  divine  power 
to  be  thus  foiled;  but  if  such  tragedy  should 
be  the  outcome,  what  could  we  say  but  that 
the  judgments  of  the  Lord  are  true  and 
righteous  altogether?  If  we  are  to  avoid 
such  an  outcome,  patriotism  must  expe¬ 
rience  Christian  salvation.  An  unregener¬ 
ate  patriotism  will  inevitably  burn  up  the 
riches  of  the  earth,  destroy  the  race,  and 
leave  a  blackened  globe — a  cosmic  pile  of 
ashes— as  a  monument  to  human  fatuity, 
imbecility,  and  selfishness. 


V 


BETTER  TERMS  WITH  SCIENCE 

One  of  the  age-old  human  conflicts  is 
that  between  science  and  religion.  One  of 
the  perennial  struggles  toward  reconcilia¬ 
tion  is  that  which  would  bring  science  and 
religion  to  live  together  amicably. 

It  would  be  a  waste  of  time  to  try  to 
sketch  out  the  changing  phases  of  this  so- 
called  warfare  between  science  and  religion. 
Much  of  the  conflict  has  depended  upon 
misunderstanding  of  terms,  and  misunder¬ 
standing,  also,  of  the  proper  territories  and 
frontiers  of  the  two  contending  factions. 
Any  conflict  measurably  lessens  when  the 
contestants  begin  to  realize  their  own 
limitations.  Both  science  and  religion  have 
been  considerably  chastened  by  the  discus¬ 
sions  of  the  last  half  century,  and  the  signs 
of  mutual  regard  and  concession  to-day  are 
more  plentiful  than  ever  before. 

In  intellectual,  as  in  other  battles,  a  gain 
is  made  when  the  opponents  arrive  at  mutual 
respect.  This  discussion  will  show,  I  trust, 

167 


168 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


that  science  and  religion  have  arrived  or 
are  arriving  at  such  respect.  As  in  most 
battles,  in  some  particulars  science  has  won 
outright;  in  others,  religion  has  won  out¬ 
right;  in  others  still  there  is  legitimate 
compromise  or,  at  least,  treaty  of  peace. 
In  some  aspects  of  this  conflict  there  has 
been  agreed-upon  delimitation  of  territory; 
in  some  there  is  manifest  a  willingness, 
even  an  eagerness,  on  both  sides  for  co¬ 
operation.  To  speak  in  terms  of  physics, 
in  some  encounters  there  has  been  direct 
collision,  with  the  stronger  force  winning  a 
victory  over  the  weaker.  In  others,  two 
forces,  meeting  as  at  an  angle,  have  been 
compounded  into  a  new  force  acting  with 
a  changed  direction.  In  still  others  the 
forces  have  purposely  merged  together, 
uniting  their  powers. 

We  now  know  the  nature  of  the  conflict 
better  than  ever.  We  know  that  we  are 
dealing  not  with  absolute  entities — science 
and  religion — arrayed  against  each  other. 
There  is  no  such  absolute  as  science,  no 
such  absolute  as  religion.  There  are  human 
beings,  some  of  them  more  or  less  scientific, 
some  of  them  more  or  less  religious,  though 


BETTER  TERMS  WITH  SCIENCE  169 


even  here  we  get  into  the  fog  when  we  try 
to  define  terms  sharply  enough  to  divide 
classes.  Many  a  saint  is  scientific  without 
knowing  it,  and  many  a  scientist  is  reli¬ 
gious  without  suspecting  his  own  piety. 
The  recognition  of  this  decidedly  human 
aspect  of  our  problems  enables  us  to  get 
our  bearings  at  the  same  time  that  we  give 
up  our  sharpness  of  classificatory  distinc¬ 
tions.  Incidentally,  we  learn  to  discount 
the  dogmatist,  either  scientific  or  eccle¬ 
siastic.  Possibly  the  long,  long  conflict  has 
not  been  between  science  and  religion  as 
such  at  all,  but  between  dogmatic  ecclesias¬ 
tics  and  dogmatic  scientists.  The  con¬ 
fusion  has  been  increased  by  the  complica¬ 
tions  which  come  out  of  organization  on 
the  one  side  and  on  the  other.  Organized 
Christianity  is  not  necessarily  always  reli¬ 
gious,  and  the  scientific  mind  sometimes 
organizes  its  pronouncements  into  ortho¬ 
doxies  which  are  not  scientific. 


One  long  step  toward  peace,  we  repeat,  is 
in  the  discovery  that  each  group  of  con¬ 
testants  has  its  limitations.  There  are 
some  questions  that  science  cannot  answer; 


170 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


some  that  religion  cannot  answer.  Science 
concerns  itself  chiefly  with  the  processes  by 
which  events  come  to  pass;  with  the  formu¬ 
las  and  laws  which  tell  us  how  changes 
happen  and  how  forces  act.  The  religious 
leader  arises  with  a  standard  of  moral  and 
spiritual  values  to  tell  us  what  results  are 
worth  after  they  are  achieved.  To  take  an 
illustration  from  a  less  debatable  field, 
think  of  the  distinction  between  an  artist 
and  a  scientist.  The  scientist  can  tell  us 
how  a  glorious  sunset,  for  example,  or  a 
pageant  of  color  at  dawn,  comes  about. 
He  knows  the  laws  of  light  and  of  color. 
The  artist,  who  may  understand  none  of 
these  laws,  can  point  out  the  aesthetic 
charm  of  the  sunset.  There  is  no  reason 
for  a  fight  between  artists  and  scientists  as 
long  as  the  artists  stick  to  art  and  the 
scientists  stick  to  science.  So  also  with 
scientific  statements  and  religious  interpre¬ 
tations. 

In  outline,  I  think,  the  above  commonly 
accepted  delimitation  of  the  field  between 
science  and  religion  will  have  to  stand. 
Practically,  it  does  not  carry  us  far.  The 
problem  is  more  complex  than  such  a  sum- 


BETTER  TERMS  WITH  SCIENCE  171 


mary  would  indicate,  just  because  we  are 
treating  not  with  an  abstract  science  and 
an  abstract  religion,  but  with  human  beings 
who  are  at  the  same  time  more  or  less  both 
scientific  and  religious.  The  scientific  man 
often  carries  into  his  science  religious  or 
antireligious  assumptions,  and  the  religious 
man  often  carries  into  his  devotional  medi¬ 
tation  scientific  or  antiscientific  assump¬ 
tions.  It  will  not  suffice,  therefore,  to  trace 
a  boundary  between  science  and  religion 
and  tell  each  to  keep  on  its  own  side  of  the 
fence.  Theoretically,  religion  as  the  study 
of  values,  and  science  as  the  study  of  meth¬ 
ods  and  processes,  are  sharply  distinguished. 
Practically,  since  we  are  dealing  with 
human  beings,  scientific  and  religious  think¬ 
ing  get  badly  mixed  up.  Let  us  call  atten¬ 
tion,  then,  to  the  need  of  keeping  the  as¬ 
sumptions  of  science  clear.  If  the  physicist 
assumes  that  matter  and  force  are  all,  God, 
freedom,  and  immortality  will  be  ruled  out 
— ruled  out  not  because  the  physicist  has 
proved  scientifically  that  they  do  not  exist, 
but  because  materialistic  philosophy  has 
interfered  in  his  investigations.  The  reli¬ 
gious  man  likewise  may  avow  that  his 


172 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


faith  convinces  him  that  events  in  the 
spiritual  realm  have  happened  by  certain 
definite  processes.  He  is  not  talking  faith 
at  all — possibly  he  is  uttering  poor  science. 
Both  in  religious  and  scientific  thinking  we 
need  to  remember  to  watch  the  assump¬ 
tion.  It  is  the  recognition  of  this  need  that 
is  making  in  part  for  increased  charity  be¬ 
tween  men  of  science  and  men  of  religion. 
Both  walk  by  faith,  the  scientist  by  faith 
in  a  method  or  theory,  the  religionist  by 
faith  in  a  spiritual  value  or  a  doctrine. 
The  man  of  science  is  learning  his  lesson 
fully  as  well  as  the  man  of  religion.  The 
scientist  is  more  and  more  seeing  that  ex¬ 
pectations  and  theories  play  quite  as  effec¬ 
tively  in  leading  him  into  scientific  truth  or 
error  as  do  his  test  tubes  and  his  lenses, 
and  he  is  scrutinizing  the  theories.  No 
irremediable  harm  can  come  if  the  assump¬ 
tions  are  openly  recognized  and  their  sig¬ 
nificance  taken  into  the  philosophic  ac¬ 
count. 

As  a  current  illustration  of  the  extent  to 
which  assumption  works  in  determining  the 
findings  of  students  even  in  a  most  objec¬ 
tive  field,  think  of  two  interpretations  of 


BETTER  TERMS  WITH  SCIENCE  173 


the  Einstein  doctrine.  Einstein  comes  for¬ 
ward  with  a  theory  of  space  and  time  which 
claims  to  do  away  with  the  possibility  of 
any  one  all-embracing  space  or  of  any  one 
all-embracing  time  such  as  appear  to  be 
assumed  in  the  doctrines  of  Newton.  Ein¬ 
stein’s  own  space  and  time  seem  to  be 
pretty  closely  interwoven — but  there  is  no 
absolute  cosmic  space-standard  or  time- 
standard  by  reference  to  which  different 
relative  spaces  and  times  can  be  brought 
into  unity — we  have  not  space  and  time, 
but  as  many  spaces  and  times  as  we  have 
observers.  Now  comes  Viscount  Haldane, 
a  thinker  of  scientific  habit,  devoted  to  an 
idealistic  philosophy.  He  hails  Einstein  as 
the  greatest  intellect  of  the  last  two  hun¬ 
dred  years,  and  sees  in  his  theory  almost  a 
final  seal  set  upon  idealism  because  of  the 
apparent  emphasis  of  Einstein  on  pre¬ 
dominantly  mental  construction  in  space 
and  time.  The  physicist  has  driven  matter 
as  self-existent  stuff  out  of  the  universe, 
replacing  it  with  forces  in  space.  Einstein 
has  gone  a  step  further  and  has  delivered 
us  from  bondage  to  self-existent  space.  As 
Haldane  passes  on  Bertrand  Russell  ap- 


174 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


pears,  a  mathematical  philosopher  of  quite 
definitely  atheistic  bent,  and  acclaims 
Einstein  as  having  set  space  and  time 
free  from  mental  construction  or,  at  least, 
as  having  provided  a  space  and  time 
in  which  something  outside  of  and  indif¬ 
ferent  to  mind  goes  on  under  its  own  laws. 
Russell  is  so  set  against  pragmatism,  or 
against  any  system  which  seems  to  let  the 
human-will-to-believe  count,  that  he  ap¬ 
pears  at  times  to  make  the  will-not-to- 
believe  determinative  of  truth;  but  his  in¬ 
terests  in  a  preconceived  outcome  are  just 
as  marked  as  Haldane’s.  Manifestly,  a 
thinker  can  accept  Einstein  and  be  either 
a  theist  or  an  atheist.  The  Einstein  geom¬ 
etry  and  mathematics  are  what  they  are. 
Einstein  states  the  formulas,  and  the  theist 
believes  in  God,  just  as  before,  while  the 
atheist  finds  new  reason  for  not  believing 
in  God.  Einstein  himself  is  apparently  not 
particularly  concerned,  one  way  or  the 
other.  Very  likely  he  does  not  care  over¬ 
much  what  either  Haldane  or  Russell  is 
saying.  In  his  own  expositions  he  sticks 
so  closely  to  mathematics  and  astronomy 
that  the  element  of  assumption  seems  re- 


BETTER  TERMS  WITH  SCIENCE  1*5 

duced  to  a  minimum — though  he  himself  is 
moving  on  a  most  overwhelming  assump¬ 
tion,  namely,  that  a  human  mind  on  an 
insignificant  planet,  which  is  a  cosmic  speck 
floating  as  a  beam  in  the  light,  can  read 
off  the  secrets  of  the  astronomical  universe 
with  an  exactness  finer  than  a  hair’s 
breadth. 

By  the  way,  it  is  always  interesting  to 
note  how7  those  who  rule  mind  out  of  the 
universe  do  so  in  the  name  of  mind.  Here 
is  Einstein’s  theory,  built  on  the  most  ex¬ 
traordinary  intellectual  achievements.  His 
instrument  is  a  theory  of  tensors,  of  which, 
it  is  said,  only  a  dozen  men  have  any  ade¬ 
quate  knowledge — an  intellectual  appara¬ 
tus  uniformly  characterized  as  powerful. 
The  power  must  have  existed  in  the  mind 
which  created  the  apparatus.  Yet  this 
wholly  intellectual  instrument  manipulated 
by  a  thinker  like  Bertrand  Russell  is  a  tool 
for  exorcising  mind  from  the  universe! 
Mind,  in  the  name  of  mind,  says  to  mind, 
“There  is  no  mind.”  If  mind  counts  for 
nothing  in  the  universe,  it  is  mind  itself 
that  has  found  out  its  own  weakness.  A 
mind  strong  enough  to  discover  its  own 


176 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


weakness  is  fairly  strong.  If  this  seems  not 
quite  fair,  let  us  consider  that  mind,  after 
all,  is  the  discoverer  of  what  even  the 
scientist  thinks  of  as  the  facts  about  the 
universe,  and  that  the  discovery  of  physi¬ 
cal  truth,  depending  as  it  does  upon 
tremendously  intense  putting  forth  of 
intellectual  energy,  is  itself  a  phenomenon 
to  be  explained.  If  we  could  think  of 
mind  as  a  mere  passive  somewhat  on  which 
a  universe  prints  a  picture  of  itself,  we 
would  have  one  problem — provided  we 
could  find  some  mind  to  see  the  picture — 
but  nobody  can  look  upon  the  mathemati¬ 
cal  processes  by  which  astronomical  truth 
is  caught  in  equations  and  think  of  mind  as 
passive.  If  the  materialist  means  that 
mind  has  no  materially  creative  force  in 
the  universe,  his  argument  is  at  least  in¬ 
telligible,  but  when  he  goes  on  to  show 
that  mind  is  a  passive  accompaniment  of 
physical  process  he  is  talking  nonsensical 
paradox,  in  face  of  the  elaborately  subtle 
and  powerful  intellectual  machinery  with 
which  his  own  mind  does  its  work.  It 
would  take  quite  a  different  type  of 
matter  from  any  we  know  to  be  able 


BETTER  TERMS  WITH  SCIENCE  177 


materialistically  to  account  for  Einstein’s 
tensors. 


To  get  back  to  our  main  path,  we  find 
growing  understanding  between  religious 
thinkers  and  scientific  thinkers  in  the  in¬ 
creasing  recognition  by  open-minded  reli¬ 
gious  teachers  of  what  we  all  call  the 
scientific  temper.  The  publication  of  the 
biographies  of  leading  scientists  has  been 
almost  as  productive  of  spiritual  nourish¬ 
ment  for  the  religiously  minded  as  has  the 
publication  of  the  lives  of  the  saints.  The 
genuine  scientist,  like  the  genuine  saint, 
has  been  better  than  the  organization  of 
which  he  is  a  part,  though  scientists,  ar¬ 
tists,  and  saints  would  never  come  to  their 
best  if  they  were  not  aided  by  the  coopera¬ 
tive  effort  of  “schools.”  A  school  of  scien¬ 
tists,  or  an  organized  body  of  scientists, 
however,  soon  develops  its  own  brand  of 
scientific  orthodoxy.  It  acquires  vested 
interests  in  the  teaching  of  its  theories.  It 
gets  snobbish  and  pharisaical  in  the  use  of 
the  scales  it  manufactures  to  test  scientific 
orthodoxy.  All  the  objections  that  can  be 
urged  against  the  dogmatism  and  pharisa- 


178 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


ism  and  bigotry  of  religious  orthodoxy,  once 
it  hardens  into  organization,  can  be  urged 
against  science,  once  it  ossifies  into  the 
final  stages  of  organization.  In  fact,  the 
more  truly  religious  leaders  and  the  more 
truly  scientific  leaders  often  find  a  basis  of 
union  in  the  clash  with  the  same  sorts  of 
dogmatic  foes  who  appear  both  in  the  reli¬ 
gious  and  in  the  scientific  ranks. 

All  this  apart,  the  true  saint  and  the 
true  scientist  are  much  alike.  The  saint 
seeks  to  follow  God’s  will  whithersoever  it 
leads  him  and  the  scientist  follows  truth 
whithersoever  it  leads  him.  The  saint 
learns  God’s  will  by  childlike  openness  of 
mind — by  patient  waiting  day  after  day 
for  truth  to  unfold  itself,  by  willingness  to 
receive  the  truth  for  its  own  worth  when 
once  it  appears,  regardless  of  the  quarter 
whence  it  has  actually  arrived.  The  same 
description  will  serve  word  for  word  to  set 
forth  the  character  of  the  scientist.  The 
great  scientists  and  the  great  saints  are 
much  alike. 

We  have  been  trying  to  say  all  along 
that  the  final  bond  of  imion  between 
groups  is  that  of  cooperation  toward  a 


BETTER  TERMS  WITH  SCIENCE  179 


common  end.  The  religious  mind  and  the 
scientific  mind  are  more  and  more  cooper¬ 
ating  in  the  name  of  the  self-evident  human 
ideals — are  seeking  to  render  the  vastest 
possible  human  service. 

Here  we  hear  the  voice  of  protest.  Many 
a  religionist  will  have  it  that  even  when 
science  is  not  hostile  to  religion  it  is  so  set 
on  facts  for  facts’  sake  that  the  result  is 
the  same.  The  scientist  cares  for  facts  as 
facts,  and  only  as  facts.  This  charge  is 
sometimes  welcomed  by  the  scientist  him¬ 
self.  He  avows  that  science  cannot  flourish 
on  human  interests;  especially  must  it  cast 
out  all  taint  of  practical  consideration. 

Practical  interests  are  one  thing;  human 
interests  may  be  another.  The  scientist  is 
justified  in  protesting  against  the  emphasis 
on  utilitarian  considerations  in  scientific  re¬ 
search.  He  points  out  that  the  most  im¬ 
portant  practical  results  of  science  have 
been  made  possible  as  the  outcome  of  the 
discoveries  of  students  with  no  bread-and- 
butter  aim.  Of  course,  if  the  objector  is 
not  careful,  he  will  reinstate  the  practical 
aim  by  such  argument,  but  in  the  main  the 
point  is  well  taken.  Still,  we  are  not  rid 


180 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


of  the  human  reference.  In  the  contempla¬ 
tion  of  the  most  abstract  mathematical 
truth  there  is  always  implied  the  delight 
which  the  truth  gives,  or  may  give,  the 
onlooker.  The  scientist  may  feel  a  positive 
thrill  of  delight  at  a  discovery.  He  burns 
to  communicate  the  discovery  to  others. 
“The  discovery  is  so  significant,”  he  says; 
but  significance  is  significant  only  in  ref¬ 
erence  to  a  mind.  The  scientist  talks 
about  the  consistency  of  his  results  as  they 
hold  together  in  a  logical  plan,  of  the  de¬ 
pendence  of  parts  one  on  another,  of  the 
self-sufficient  beauty  of  the  scientific  hy¬ 
pothesis.  Mind  —  mind  —  mind  —  all 
through!  The  discovery  has  come  out  of 
the  pressure  of  mental  interests.  So  the 
scientist  and  the  seeker  after  religion  in 
the  end  set  on  high  the  contemplation  of 
truth  as  a  lordly  human  aim.  In  lofty 
theory  of  the  working  of  the  forces  of  the 
universe  the  saint  declares  that  his  soul  is 
fed  by  thinking  God’s  thoughts  after  him 
— that,  too,  without  any  reference  to  the 
utilitarian  character  of  the  thoughts.  The 
scientist  may  not  be  willing  to  admit  that 
he  is  seeking  to  ennoble  the  human  mind 


BETTER  TERMS  WITH  SCIENCE  181 


by  setting  before  it  the  vastest  thought, 
but  that  is  what  he  is  doing  nevertheless. 
He  may  not  speak  outright  of  God,  but  he 
has  given  mighty  content  to  the  idea  of 
God.  He  has  stretched  out  the  spaces  be¬ 
tween  suns  and  stars  and  given  longer 
radius  for  the  leap  of  the  divine  forces. 
The  scientist  has  not,  we  repeat,  given  us 
a  God,  but  he  has  expanded  and  made 
massive  the  idea  of  God  which  we  already 
have. 

This,  however,  is  perhaps  too  quantita¬ 
tive  in  its  suggestiveness.  The  scientist 
has  forced  upon  the  upholder  of  religion  a 
more  qualitative  idea  of  the  divine  working, 
which  is  being  more  and  more  welcomed  by 
the  religious  thinker — the  idea  of  the  per¬ 
vasion  of  the  activities  of  the  world  through¬ 
out  with  law.  This  insistence  upon  law, 
upon  regularity  in  the  procedure  of  the 
forces  of  the  universe,  is  the  best  single 
contribution  which  the  scientist  has  made 
to  the  progress  of  religion.  We  are  to-day 
everywhere  interpreting  the  forces  of  the 
universe  as  the  activities  of  the  Divine 
Agent  here  and  now.  If  we  can  just  get 
fast  hold  of  that  idea,  we  shall  see  that 


182 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


every  additional  formulation  of  a  law  of 
nature  is  a  further  hint  of  the  regularity  of 
the  divine  mind.  We  shall  see  that  the 
scientist  and  the  preacher  should  work  to¬ 
gether  to  discover  law  in  the  working  of 
the  world.  God  saves  men  by  the  meth¬ 
ods  of  psychological  movement;  he  reveals 
himself  to  men  by  processes  which  the  his¬ 
torical  student  can  grasp  and  state;  he 
carries  out  his  will  through  organizations 
which  must  work  according  to  ascertain¬ 
able  group  laws. 

What,  then,  becomes  of  miracle?  Mir¬ 
acle  as  the  manifestation  of  the  working  of 
a  force  whose  law  we  have  not  yet  learned, 
or  miracle  as  the  expression  of  the  unique 
working  of  unique  spiritual  power,  or  mir¬ 
acle  on  any  terms  that  make  it  the  mani¬ 
festation  of  a  law-observing  God,  will  stay; 
but  miracle  as  the  sign  of  lawlessness,  or 
of  breaking  of  the  law,  or  of  arbitrary  ir¬ 
regularity  will  go.  It  is  odd  that  in  dis¬ 
cussion  of  miracles  some  of  those  who 
clamor  for  miracle  as  the  setting  aside  of 
law  do  not  see  that  the  sinners  are  the 
miracle-workers,  on  such  a  definition.  Sin¬ 
ners  are  the  setters-aside  of  the  law.  The 


BETTER  TERMS  WITH  SCIENCE  183 


saint  works  the  higher  miracle  of  seizing 
and  utilizing  law.  Certain  extraordinary 
occurrences  in  the  scriptural  revelation  will 
probably  always  be  accepted  as  facts.  The 
religious  interpretation  of  those  facts  will 
more  and  more  bring  them  into  line  with 
the  idea  of  a  rationally  working  Agent 
whose  laws  are  the  expression  of  supreme 
wisdom.  There  is  almost  a  tinge  of  sac¬ 
rilege  in  some  theological  insistence  that 
God  shall  set  aside  laws.  The  laws  are  an 
expression  of  the  divine  nature.  It  is  a 
curious  twist  of  mind  that  seeks  to  set 
aside  a  law  which,  in  the  Christian  view 
of  the  world,  is  the  sign  of  divine  regu¬ 
larity,  in  the  name  of  the  search  for  intel¬ 
ligence  in  the  World-Agent. 

The  purpose  of  that  Agent  both  scien¬ 
tists  and  teachers  of  religion  will  have  to 
leave  to  faith.  Why  things  are  as  they 
are  is,  of  course,  the  mystery  of  mysteries, 
and  the  mere  inspection  of  nature’s  proc¬ 
esses  cannot  fully  answer  us.  More  and 
more  does  pain  in  the  human  and  animal 
realms  become  opaque  mystery.  Still, 
there  is  no  reason  why  we  should  make 
the  facts  darker  than  they  are.  The  scien- 


184 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


list  assumes  an  intelligible  universe  and  an 
orderly  plan.  These  help  and  help  mightily 
as  the  man  of  faith  announces  his  faith.  It 
helps  also  to  realize  more  and  more  that 
the  scientist  as  such  no  longer  seeks  to 
disprove  the  essentials  on  which  religious 
faith  builds — at  least,  the  scientist  who  un¬ 
derstands  himself.  Take  the  intimate  cor¬ 
relation  which  to-day  we  know  to  exist 
between  physical  and  mental  processes. 
There  is  no  use  blinking  the  fact  that 
many  and  many  a  scientist  believes  that 
this  connection  is  so  close  that  mind  is 
essentially  and  always  subordinate  to  mat¬ 
ter;  but  this  is  belief  and  not  proof.  Why 
get  alarmed,  moreover,  at  the  statement  of 
such  materialism  in  specific  terms  when  we 
have  always  had  to  deal  with  it  in  general 
terms?  Ever  since  men  knew  anything 
they  seem  to  have  known  that  thinking 
somehow  has  to  do  with  a  man’s  head.  If 
we  can  make  an  adjustment  to  that  age- 
old  conception,  why  get  excited  when  some 
one  tells  us  specifically  that  particular 
forms  of  thinking  have  to  do  with  par¬ 
ticular  parts  of  the  head  and  that  to  cut 
out  these  parts  will  stop  that  kind  of  think- 


BETTER  TERMS  WITH  SCIENCE  185 


ing?  We  have  always  known  the  general 
truth  that  if  we  strike  a  man’s  head,  the 
man  may  stop  thinking,  and  we  do  not 
accept  materialism  because  of  that  univer¬ 
sally  admitted  fact.  Again,  we  have  al¬ 
ways  known  that  given  bodily  states  have 
significance  in  influencing  some  manifes¬ 
tations  of  human  character.  Here  is  a 
man  in  a  violent  outbreak  of  temper.  We 
say  that  he  is  not  himself,  that  he  is  be¬ 
side  himself,  that  he  is  sick.  The  general 
effect  of  bodily  states  on  the  manifestation 
of  moral  states  has  always  been  known. 
Why  worry  if  some  physiological  psychol¬ 
ogist  shows  the  connection  between  the 
working  of  particular  glands  and  some 
manifestations  of  moral  character?  The 
strict  scientist  admits  that  this  proves 
nothing  more  than  a  dependence  which 
may  be  merely  a  feature  of  an  earthly 
existence.  Faith  does  not  consist  in  be¬ 
lieving  in  spite  of  disproof.  It  believes  in 
putting  the  best  construction  on  what  we 
know,  and  of  assuming  the  best  where  we 
do  not  know. 


A  moment  ago  I  spoke  of  the  tendency 


186 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


of  the  scientist  to  be  somewhat  disparaging 
of  the  more  practical  interests.  May  I  say 
here  that  since  we  live  in  a  work-a-day 
world,  the  field  in  which  men  of  religion 
and  men  of  science  are  coming  more  closely 
together  is  that  of  the  practical  work  of 
the  relief  of  human  suffering  and  the  re¬ 
lease  of  human  energies.  The  man  of  reli¬ 
gion  is  trying  more  and  more  to  use  the 
scientific  method  in  the  spirit  of  Christ — 
and  is  not  the  man  of  science  fundamen¬ 
tally  doing  the  same,  even  when  he  may 
not  name  the  name  of  Christ?  How  far 
would  a  scientist  get  to-day  if  he  should 
flatly  declare  that  he  will  not  work  in  a 
Christly  spirit,  that  he  will  think  only  of 
himself,  that  he  will  make  all  the  money 
he  can,  that  he  will  be  absolutely  cold¬ 
blooded  and  selfish?  That  is  not  the  spirit 
of  science.  The  scientist  and  the  preacher 
work  together  to  make  the  world  a  better 
place  in  which  to  live. 

Suppose  we  think  of  the  actual  recon¬ 
ciliations  manifested  in  a  well-ordered  hos¬ 
pital  of  to-day,  a  hospital  which,  if  you 
please,  is  controlled  and  supported  by  a 
church.  The  hospital  is  impossible  with- 


BETTER  TERMS  WITH  SCIENCE  187 


out  a  respect  on  the  part  of  the  scientists 
for  the  aim  of  the  church  as  seeking  to 
minister  to  human  need,  and  without  a 
realization  on  the  part  of  the  church  au¬ 
thorities  that  it  is  useless  to  open  the 
hospital  doors  without  the  aid  of  scientists. 
By  the  side  of  every  operating  table  and 
every  cot  are  at  work  theories  of  disease 
and  cure  which  would  have  been  heresies  a 
century  ago.  The  whole  conception  of 
sickness  as  a  punishment  upon  the  indi¬ 
vidual  for  his  personal  sins  is  a  monstrosity 
in  a  hospital.  If  a  doctor  or  a  nurse  should 
insist  upon  treating  sick  people  primarily 
as  sinners  deserving  of  penalty,  there  would 
be  at  once  an  outcry  from  the  church  as 
well  as  from  science.  The  idea  that  pain 
is  to  be  banished  as  far  as  possible  was 
formerly  itself  under  the  ban  of  theolo¬ 
gians  who  held  that  to  annihilate  pain  was 
to  minimize  the  curse  which  the  fall  of  man 
laid  upon  the  race.  The  atmosphere  of  a 
hospital  is  charged  with  reconciliations  be¬ 
tween  science  and  religion,  to  say  nothing 
of  reconciliations  between  scientists  and 
scientists  and  believers  and  believers.  Pain 
is  no  respecter  of  creeds — and  the  treat- 


188 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


ment  of  pain  is  the  same  for  the  creed- 
holders  and  creed-rejectors.  Theories  of 
microbic  processes  which  once  divided 
scientists  into  warring  camps  now  bind  the 
erstwhile  combatants  together.  It  calls  for 
but  slight  effort  of  imagination  to  carry 
through  on  the  world-wide  scale  this  dream 
of  reconciliation  as,  all  over  the  world, 
men  of  a  Christ  spirit  seek  to  make  the 
scientific  method  work  in  the  spirit  of 
Christ.  Science  itself  is  one  of  the  indis¬ 
pensable  agencies  of  the  Christian  recon¬ 
ciliation,  for  science  itself  can  hardly 
progress  except  as  it  seeks  for  a  world 
community  and  a  world  sphere  in  which 
to  move. 


These  considerations  may  give  us  an 
avenue  of  approach  to  the  problem  of 
how  to  deal  with  forward  movements  in 
churches  where  the  progress  is  the  out¬ 
come  of  the  spirit  of  science,  or  the  temper 
of  science,  working  through  the  churchmen. 
In  our  thought  of  the  function  of  the  theo¬ 
logical  leader  let  us  remember  that  all 
progress  in  adaptation  between  older  theol¬ 
ogies  and  newer  views  made  necessary  by 


BETTER  TERMS  WITH  SCIENCE  189 


scientific  advance  passes  through  well- 
marked  stages.  Almost  any  new  view  is  at 
first  met  with  opposition.  There  is  at  the 
beginning  fierce  fighting.  The  opening  at¬ 
tack  declares  that  the  new  idea  is  heresy. 
After  the  fighting  cools  down  there  is  grad¬ 
ual  acceptance  of  the  supposed  heresy, 
with  the  avowal  that  it  is  a  matter  of 
indifference  whether  we  accept  it  or  not. 
The  view  is  pronounced  harmless  in  any 
case.  Finally  arrives  the  stage  at  which 
the  view  is  widely  accepted  as  an  essential, 
or,  at  least,  an  important  contribution  to 
human  thinking.  The  view  at  last  be¬ 
comes  itself  thoroughly  orthodox,  and  we 
may  even  think  of  it  as  belonging  to  that 
self-evident  truth  which  men  have  always 
believed. 

The  first  contribution  that  the  so-called 
innovator  makes  is  in  raising  his  question 
at  all — or  insisting  upon  his  right  to  ques¬ 
tion.  Any  organization  of  truth,  especially 
of  religious  truth,  is  safe  only  when  the 
questioner  is  at  hand.  Orthodoxies  of  all 
kinds,  religious  or  scientific  alike,  are  so¬ 
cially  permissible  only  on  condition  that 
they  stand  out  in  the  open  where  what 


190 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


William  James  called  the  northwest  wind  of 
free  inquiry  can  roar  around  them.  Theol¬ 
ogy  must  meet  the  questioning  of  every 
age,  and  the  questioner  is  performing  an 
indispensable  social  and  religious  function. 
The  more  closely  and  compactly  organized 
religious  truth  becomes,  the  more  the  need 
of  scrutiny,  for  in  the  nature  of  truth — a 
nature  which  implies  organic  adjustments 
and  readjustments  and  living  change  and 
rebirth — anything  suggestive  of  overorgani¬ 
zation  smacks  of  error.  The  more  a  church 
becomes  sure  of  its  formal  theology  the 
more  need  for  the  questioner. 

A  further  service  rendered  by  the  sayer 
of  new  things  is  just  that  of  making  the 
new  conception  familiar.  The  ordinary 
man  in  church  or  out  of  church  gets  over 
his  fear  as  he  becomes  more  familiar  with 
the  fearful.  Here  is  a  heretic  who  keeps  on 
announcing  his  heresy  year  after  year.  If, 
now,  the  heretic  is  driven  out  of  the 
church,  an  element  of  persecuting  force  has 
been  brought  to  play  which  prevents  the 
consideration  of  the  heresy  on  its  merits. 
Persecution  sometimes  does  harm  in  lead¬ 
ing  to  the  spread  of  persecuted  doctrines 


BETTER  TERMS  WITH  SCIENCE  191 


which  ought  not  to  be  spread.  Suppose, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  heretic  goes  on  with¬ 
out  interruption,  in  full  and  free  discussion. 
The  heavens  do  not  fall.  If  the  idea  is 
absurd,  its  absurdity  is  seen  through  after 
a  while.  If  it  is  sound,  the  soundness  be¬ 
comes  apparent.  The  idea  becomes  fa¬ 
miliar.  Perhaps  even  the  heretic,  on  his 
own  account,  sees  his  own  weakness,  after 
a  while. 

The  best  resolution  for  a  church  to  make 
in  dealing  with  a  rising  generation  of 
youths  filled  with  the  new  wine  of  a  rather 
raw  scientific  progressiveness  is  to  cultivate 
a  shock-proof  nervous  stability.  For  many 
years  I  have  been  frequently  holding  per¬ 
sonal  interviews  with  college  students  on 
matters  of  religious  faith  and  practice.  I 
have  listened  to  veritable  processions  of 
twenty-year-old  atheists  and  anarchists  as 
they  have  banished  God  out  of  the  uni¬ 
verse  and  order  from  human  society.  More 
than  once  I  have  seen  the  youthful  philos¬ 
opher  stop  and  say  with  a  boyish  grin,  in 
response  to  a  calm  “What  of  it?”  “Well,  it 
does  sound  rather  stupid,  now  that  I  have 
talked  it  out.” 


192 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


Sometimes  the  “What  of  it?”  has  to 
recognize  that  in  all  honesty  there  is  a 
great  deal  to  be  squarely  met  and  fairly 
treated.  At  any  rate,  it  is  the  business  of 
the  church  to  press  to  close  quarters  with 
the  question  which  has  been  raised — close 
enough  to  it  to  rob  it  of  all  advantage  it 
may  possess  through  sheer  strangeness,  or 
of  terror  through  unfamiliarity. 

It  is  well  for  us  all  to  remember  also  the 
part  played  by  the  pioneer  in  pushing  new 
ideas  out  to  extreme  statement.  What  is 
balance  in  religious  thinking?  A  steadi¬ 
ness  so  stiff  that  there  is  no  rolling  of  the 
ship?  Such  steadiness  is  likely  to  cut 
down  the  speed.  Balance  is  such  construc¬ 
tion  that  the  boat  can  roll  considerably 
without  upsetting.  In  the  history  of  both 
scientific  and  religious  ideas  progress  comes 
as  various  doctrines  are  carried  out  to  their 
logical  extremes  in  statement.  In  state¬ 
ment,  I  say,  for  the  inertia  of  human  na¬ 
ture  is  on  the  whole  a  safeguard  against 
any  doctrine’s  being  widely  carried  to  an 
extreme  in  practice.  We  cannot  always 
understand  a  doctrine  till  it  is  given  its 
farthest  conceivable  putting.  Hence,  there 


BETTER  TERMS  WITH  SCIENCE  193 


is  a  stage  in  the  development  of  every  doc¬ 
trine  when  its  advocates  make  it  explain 
everything.  It  does  not  explain  every¬ 
thing,  but  the  far-fetched  putting  enables 
us  to  get  at  the  truth  or  the  falsity.  In  the 
end  the  conception  from  which  the  advo¬ 
cate  expected  everything  may  find  itself 
filling  a  disappointingly  small  niche  in  the 
temple  of  human  philosophy,  but  it  might 
not  have  occupied  even  that  without  the 
extravagant  expositions  of  its  supporters. 

If  anyone  is  terrified  at  any  of  the  above 
suggestions,  let  it  be  remembered  that  we 
are  taking  certain  conditions  for  granted. 
We  are  assuming,  above  all,  that  we  are 
dealing  with  servants  of  the  church  in 
search  of  the  truth.  If  some  reader  is 
inclined  to  think  that  all  this  would  war¬ 
rant  a  religious  thinker’s  swinging  clear 
over  into  atheism  so  as  to  make  the  most 
of  a  scientific  theory,  let  him  ask  himself 
how  many  theologians  are  likely  to  do  this, 
or  how  many  would  be  willing  to  remain 
inside  the  church  if  they  became  atheists. 
We  assume,  also,  that  not  all  the  members 
of  a  church  are  likely  to  be  extremists 
themselves  or  to  yield  overmuch  to  ex- 


194 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


tremism.  We  are  thinking  of  the  place 
and  function  in  the  church  of  the  earnest, 
scientifically  minded  youth  who  is  burning 
with  the  passion  of  the  intellectual  cru¬ 
sader.  We  insist  that  there  are  not  likely 
to  be  enough  of  such  crusaders  at  any  one 
time  to  do  harm  to  the  church.  We  be¬ 
lieve,  further,  that  they  are  absolutely  es¬ 
sential  to  the  safety  of  the  church.  A 
church  is  safe  only  as  it  is  alive. 

Another  objector  will  have  it  that  all 
this  opens  the  way  to  spiritual  loss,  even 
disaster  to  the  thinker  himself.  To  which 
we  reply  that  we  have  danger  in  any  plan. 
What  about  the  danger  that  young  men 
run  of  reacting  violently  against  ultra¬ 
conservative  attitudes  toward  science  and 
scientific  truth?  After  an  observation  ex¬ 
tending  through  thirty  years  I  am  in  doubt 
as  to  whether  professedly  conservative  theo¬ 
logical  schools  do  not  send  out  upon  the 
church  theological  radicals — and  poorly 
equipped  radicals  at  that.  The  student 
too  conservatively  taught  is  likely  some 
day  to  react  against  conservative  teaching 
and  then  try  to  find  his  way  along  alone, 
with  the  result  that  his  progressive  temper 


BETTER  TERMS  WITH  SCIENCE  195 


is  raw  and  possibly  fierce.  There  is  only 
one  method  of  safety  in  this  scientific  day, 
and  that  is  to  face  all  the  newer  statements 
of  science  bearing  on  religion  openly  and 
frankly  and  let  discussion  do  its  best  or 
its  worst. 

I  labor  this  point  at  the  risk  of  belabor¬ 
ing  it.  Truth  is  so  important  that  we 
must  not  block  any  channel  through  which 
it  may  arrive.  Even  if  we  do  not  have  the 
scientific  temper — and  the  majority  of  us 
do  not — we  must  get  into  the  attitude  of 
hospitality  toward  scientific  claims.  Hos¬ 
pitality  does  not  mean  that  we  are  to  take 
in  as  a  permanent  guest  everything  that 
calls  itself  scientific,  but  it  does  mean  that 
we  are  to  entertain  scientific  strangers  long 
enough  to  see  if  they  are  angels.  A  num¬ 
ber  of  years  ago  a  bill  was  introduced  into 
the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts  to  forbid 
the  teaching  of  certain  unconventional  fol¬ 
lies — in  physical  healing,  I  believe.  William 
James  appeared  to  protest  against  the  pas¬ 
sage  of  the  bill.  Probably  nobody  in  the 
Assembly  knew  better  the  nonsense  of  the 
particular  views  at  which  the  bill  aimed 
than  did  James — trained  as  he  was  both  in 


196 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


physiology  and  psychology.  Moreover, 
James  recognized  the  right  of  a  community 
to  protect  itself  against  crazy  medical 
practice.  He  protested,  however,  against 
any  limitation  of  discussion  of  any  scientific 
themes,  on  the  broad  ground  that  if  we 
close  up  even  supposedly  dangerous  doors, 
we  shut  entrances  through  which  truth  may 
be  revealed.  James  was  right.  When  we 
contemplate  the  inertia  of  the  human  mind, 
its  unwillingness  to  surrender  a  view  to 
which  it  has  become  snugly  adjusted,  the 
vested  interests,  not  merely  financial  but 
emotional  and  intellectual,  we  can  see 
that  oftentimes  along  with  the  cranks  who 
haunt  the  outer  courts  of  the  kingdom  of 
the  learned  there  may  be  a  Columbus  with 
the  promise  of  a  new  East  in  his  strange 
jargon. 

A  word  about  vested  interests  other  than 
financial.  When  we  speak  of  vested  in¬ 
terests  we  usually  refer  to  stocks  and 
bonds  which  may  be  disturbed  by  new 
social  teachings.  We  are  not  just  now 
thinking  of  social  theories  or  of  stocks  and 
bonds.  Such  vested  interests  are  not  the 
only  ones  working  on  the  side  of  a  too  stiff 


BETTER  TERMS  WITH  SCIENCE  197 


conservatism.  Here  is  a  teacher  who  has 
been  trained  in  the  classics  at  heavy  ex¬ 
pense  of  time  and  money.  The  time  and 
money  are  not  in  themselves  the  weightiest 
factors  making  for  conservatism  as  over 
against  an  emphasis  on  the  sciences.  The 
teacher  has  invested  himself  in  the  study 
and  teaching  of  the  classics,  so  that  he  in 
all  sincerity  cannot  see  the  way  clear  to 
cast  his  vote  in  faculty  meeting  for  a  modi¬ 
fication  of  curriculum  which  would  make 
larger  room  for  the  present-day  scientific 
tendencies.  So  in  spite  of  many,  many 
teachers  who,  trained  in  the  methods  of  a 
generation  ago,  nevertheless  welcome  the 
new,  the  teacher  with  a  vested  interest 
stands  against  the  progressive  view.  This 
is  especially  true  with  teachers  by  the  score 
whose  meager  salaries  have  prevented  their 
getting  a  chance  at  intellectual  progress. 
The  underpaid  teacher  is  almost  always  un¬ 
progressive,  for  he  has  never  had  a  chance 
to  get  a  new  vested  interest. 

The  case  is  similar  with  the  ministry.  A 
barrel  of  sermons  is  a  vested  interest, 
though  it  might  be  fine  if  preachers  to-day 
wrote  more,  inasmuch  as  the  writing  habit 


198 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


is  the  intellectually  organizing  habit.  Meth¬ 
ods  of  thinking  that  get  fastened  on  the 
mind  are  almost  literally  vested  interests. 
Upset  to  such  methods  is  oftentimes  as 
damaging  as  an  earthquake  to  an  old  and 
settled  community.  Congregations  can  ac¬ 
quire  vested  interests  in  habits  of  thinking 
and  feeling  and  doing. 

Is  it  not,  however,  folly  to  be  thus  on 
the  lookout  for  all  this  new  light  suppos¬ 
edly  coming  from  the  scientific  quarter 
when  there  is  so  much  that  is  established 
and  wholesome  which  Christian  pulpits  and 
schools  can  preach  and  teach?  If  all  our 
time  were  given  to  gazing  off  toward  scien¬ 
tific  high  places,  we  should  indeed  be  guilty 
of  grave  error.  I  do  not  plead  for  that.  I 
even  have  serious  doubts  as  to  whether  the 
preacher  should  often  bring  controversial 
theological  themes  into  the  pulpit.  These 
can  be  better  handled  in  discussion  groups 
where  there  is  opportunity  for  question  and 
answer.  Still,  the  realm  of  scientific  think¬ 
ing  is  preeminently  the  progressive  realm — 
using  the  words  “scientific”  and  “progres¬ 
sive”  in  the  best  sense — and  the  church  is 
under  obligation  to  keep  wrestling  with  the 


BETTER  TERMS  WITH  SCIENCE  199 


thought  problems  presented  by  the  use  of 
the  scientific  method.  It  is  only  the  in¬ 
vestigating  teacher  who  is  the  inspiring, 
quickening  teacher.  This  is  as  true  of  a 
teaching  church  as  it  is  of  a  teaching  indi¬ 
vidual.  The  church  must  inquire  and  in¬ 
quire  and  inquire  to  save  its  own  mind.  In 
keeping  its  mind  saved  it  has  a  chance  to 
keep  its  soul  saved. 

The  objection  comes  once  more  that  the 
church  could  get  along  better  with  science 
if  science  were  not  so  destructive  in  tem¬ 
per.  Science  is  always  telling  us  to  doubt 
whatever  we  cannot  prove,  whereas  reli¬ 
gion  must  always  ask  us  to  believe  many 
things  beyond  the  realm  of  proof*  This 
distinction,  however,  is  overdrawn.  Science 
takes  for  granted  many  things  that  cannot 
be  proved,  and  always  will  have  so  to  do. 
Religion  doubts  many  things,  and  always 
must.  Religion  and  science  will  have  to 
join  hands  in  some  works  of  destruction, 
but  both  are  at  bottom  constructive.  Let 
me  repeat  what  I  said  about  the  function 
of  the  progressive  in  holding  ideas  before 
the  church  until  they  become  familiar.  It 


200 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


is  not  necessary  for  the  progressive  always 
to  be  attacking  what  he  calls  out-of-date 
views.  Some  attack  is  necessary,  for  such 
views  may  be  worshiped  as  idols.  Then  the 
demand  is  for  the  idol-smasher.  The  at¬ 
tack  of  the  idol-smasher,  however,  may  not 
succeed  by  smashing  the  idol,  but  by  relo¬ 
cating  it,  in  getting  it  out  of  one  place  to 
another  where  its  true  significance  is  ob¬ 
vious.  The  idol-smasher  wants  the  room  of 
the  idol  for  something  else  and  the  quickest 
way  is  to  show  the  impotence  of  the  idol. 
If  some  archaeologist  should  to-morrow  dis¬ 
cover  a  golden  calf  like  that  which  Aaron 
made,  and  should  discover  also  evidence 
that  the  chosen  people  had  worshiped,  at 
some  time  or  other,  that  very  calf,  there 
would  not  arise  in  Christendom  an  outcry 
for  the  destruction  of  the  calf.  We  are  too 
far  along  for  that.  We  would  regard  the 
calf  most  highly,  as  possibly  a  most  val¬ 
uable  article  for  a  museum.  Now,  the  only 
way  to  get  some  ideas  out  of  vital  control 
over  the  theologians,  and  over  scientists, 
for  that  matter,  is  to  attack  them.  First 
the  power  of  the  idea  idols  is  shattered, 
after  that  they  are  put  in  a  minor  place, 


BETTER  TERMS  WITH  SCIENCE  201 


and  finally  they  are  labeled  for  the  theo¬ 
logical  museum. 

Not  many  ideas  or  institutions  can  be 
destroyed  outright,  but,  as  Lincoln  said  of 
slavery,  if  they  are  wrong,  they  can  be 
put  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction. 
Or,  in  biological  phrase,  they  can  be 
brought  to  atrophy  through  disuse.  Still, 
few  changes  are  brought  about  by  mere 
disuse.  There  must  be  the  positive  use  of 
something  better.  The  church  finds  a 
more  excellent  way.  She  announces  that 
way.  The  old  way  ceases  to  be  crowded, 
then  falls  out  of  repair,  then  becomes 
grass-grown,  and  at  last  is  forgotten,  ex¬ 
cept  for  its  name  on  the  theological  map, 
while  the  people  throng  the  better  theo¬ 
logical  highway. 

A  cynic,  speaking  some  months  ago  of 
the  church  and  science,  said  that  there  is 
no  longer  any  need  of  the  church,  that  the 
chief  function  of  the  church  in  human  so¬ 
ciety  has  always  been  destructive,  that  its 
business  has  been  to  urge  men  to  kill  their 
fellows  in  war,  but  that  now  science  has 
discovered  such  effective  ways  of  killing 
that  the  church  can  be  henceforth  dis- 


202 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


mantled.  There  is  enough  substance  in 
this  venomous  jibe  to  suggest  to  us,  by 
contrast,  the  need  of  a  union  of  religion 
and  science  in  a  world-wide  constructive 
purpose.  The  church  has  indeed  sanctioned 
destruction  in  war  after  war.  We  may  say 
if  we  will  that  religion  and  the  church  are 
not  necessarily  one  and  the  same,  but  for 
the  present  question  the  distinction  does 
not  greatly  help  us.  The  church  is  made 
up  of  people,  in  overwhelming  majority 
religious,  who  have  sincerely  called  on  God 
to  bless  war.  Science,  with  a  purely  scien¬ 
tific  impersonalism,  has  pointed  out  the 
deadliest  way  of  killing  by  wholesale.  This 
is  not  the  whole  story,  to  be  sure,  but  it  is 
one  terrible  chapter.  Can  we  not  turn 
our  backs  on  the  past  and  seek  to  follow  a 
new  life  in  social  upbuilding,  following  the 
commandment  of  God? 

The  place  to  begin,  we  repeat,  is  with 
the  task  of  building  up  the  broken  world 
in  which  we  now  find  ourselves.  If  the 
scientist  will  have  it  that  science  must 
seek  knowledge  for  its  own  sake  without 
regard  to  practical  consequences,  and  if  the 
upholder  of  religion  maintains  that  religion 


BETTER  TERMS  WITH  SCIENCE  £03 


must  be  more  than  works  of  relief,  let  both 
and  all  remember  that  in  actual  active 
service  of  men  there  arise  those  states  of 
mind  and  of  feeling  which  make  for  the 
sensitiveness  out  of  which  we  achieve  both 
scientific  and  spiritual  discoveries.  What 
we  may  think  of  as  the  lower,  more  practi¬ 
cal  activities  may  in  the  end  release  the 
higher  intellectual  and  spiritual  energies, 
just  as  digging  and  crushing  rock  and  earth 
at  last  bring  the  engineer  to  the  seizure  of 
those  rare  but  mighty  forces  which  inhere 
in  radium. 

The  outlook  to  some  men  to-day  is  dark 
as  they  feel  after  God  merely  by  the  men¬ 
tal  processes  of  the  scientist.  The  heavens 
seem  brass  above  some  religious  teachers 
who  try,  merely  by  thinking,  to  find  out 
God.  If  we  are  to  consider  an  acute  cur¬ 
rent  debate,  the  evolutionary  statement, 
with  its  long-time  measures  and  its  incred¬ 
ibly  slow  stages,  with  its  tracing  in  detailed 
steps  the  progress  upward  through  lower  to 
higher  forms  of  life,  is  declared  by  the 
“fundamentalist”  theology  particularly  to 
be  out  of  harmony  with  any  belief  in  God. 

1  hold  no  brief  for  the  doctrine  of  evo- 


204 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


lution,  but  evolution  in  some  form  is  likely 
here  to  stay.  The  fundamentalist  may 
vote  it  down,  but  the  fundamentalist’s 
children  will  adjust  themselves  to  it,  and 
will  probably  be  quite  as  religious  as  the 
fundamentalist.  A  greater  feat  of  adjust¬ 
ment  of  religion  to  science  than  that  re¬ 
quired  by  uniting  theism  and  evolutionary 
method  has  already  been  performed.  I 
refer  to  the  adjustment  to  the  Copernican 
theory.  The  Ptolemaic  theory,  with  the 
earth  as  its  center,  fits  in  better  with  our 
preconceptions  of  the  dignity  of  man  and 
the  creative  methods  of  God.  Let  us  give 
our  fancy  rein  for  a  moment.  The  stars 
nearest  the  earth  are  four  light  years  dis¬ 
tant.  That  is  to  say,  it  would  take  us  four 
years,  traveling  with  the  speed  of  light,  or 
186,000  miles  a  second,  to  reach  them. 
Suppose  we  could  travel  the  four  years  to 
a  star  and  should  find  there  intelligences 
with  whom  we  could  communicate.  It 
would  require  a  large-sized  celestial  direc¬ 
tory  in  that  star  to  find  space  for  mention 
of  an  astronomical  speck  like  the  earth. 
We  would  experience  a  realizing  sense  that 
we  had  been  dwellers  on  the  planet  in  an 


BETTER  TERMS  WITH  SCIENCE  205 


out-of-the-way,  obscure  country  lane  of  the 
universe  rather  than  on  one  of  the  main 
highways. 

Space  measures  of  inconceivable  magni¬ 
tude  are  employed  in  astronomy,  and  time 
measures  also.  What  becomes  of  man  amid 
such  yard-sticks  and  clocks?  To  all  of  this 
the  religious  mind  has  adjusted  itself  and 
holds  fast  the  idea  of  God.  Recall  what  I 
said  in  an  earlier  paragraph — the  earth 
may  be  insignificant,  but  the  dwellers  on 
the  earth  have  been  significant  enough  to 
read  the  secrets  of  the  universe.  If  we 
have  not  lost  God  in  the  infinite  spaces  of 
the  Copernican  universe,  we  need  not  lose 
him  in  the  long-time  stretches  of  the  evo¬ 
lutionary  theory. 

Of  course,  the  problem  of  human  and 
animal  pain  is  with  us  as  almost  opaque 
mystery  on  any  theory.  Here  the  solution 
is  not  by  reason  but  by  faith,  faith  in  the 
Christlikeness  of  the  God  of  Christ.  Such 
faith  is  a  distinct  spiritual  achievement,  but 
when  achieved  can  get  along  better  with 
evolutionary  than  with  nonevolutionary 
theories. 


VI 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  RISING  TIDES 

OF  COLOR 

Since  the  close  of  the  Great  War  ob¬ 
servers  of  world  conditions  have  noted, 
some  with  gratification  and  some  with 
alarm,  that  there  is  a  new  temper  among 
the  so-called  non-Christian  nations,  chiefly 
among  the  so-called  peoples  of  color.  One 
affrighted  journalist  fears  that  this  rising 
tide  may  sweep  everything  of  Western 
civilization  away.  Another  rejoices  in  the 
temper  as  a  sign  of  a  new  self-dependence 
among  peoples  hitherto  set  upon  and 
abused  and  exploited  by  Europe.  In  any 
case  the  writers  use  the  word  “rising.” 
The  rising  may  be  the  rising  of  a  tide  of 
color,  or  it  may  be  the  rising  of  a  spirit  of 
wrath,  or  the  rising  of  a  new  day  of  democ¬ 
racy  in  the  East,  but  it  is  admittedly  a 
rising  of  something. 

This  changed  spirit  makes  a  new  prob¬ 
lem  for  Christianity,  or  it  puts  an  old 

problem  in  a  new  light.  We  cannot  as 

206 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  COLOR  207 


glibly  as  of  old  use  the  eloquence  as  to 
how  superior  Christian  nations  are  to 
non-Christian,  and  how  desperately  the 
non-Christian  nations  are  in  need  of  evan¬ 
gelization  by  the  Occident.  The  non- 
Christian  nations  may  admit  a  need  of 
salvation,  but  they  are  not  so  ready  to 
admit  now  as  formerly  that  the  Christian 
nations  are  the  agents  of  salvation.  As 
saviours  of  the  world  we  do  not  stand  as 
high  as  we  did  a  few  years  ago.  The  spec¬ 
tacle  of  Christian  nations  tearing  at  one 
another’s  throats  has  not  been  an  evangel 
of  lofty  order.  Moreover,  the  intelligent 
non-Christian  is  beginning  to  suspect  that 
the  recent  fighting  was  not  merely  for 
transcendent  ideals  of  political  liberty,  but 
that  it  had  back  of  it  also  a  greed  for  world 
markets  and  raw  materials,  and  that  the 
non-Christian  nations  themselves  are  in 
danger  of  being  part  of  the  ultimate  spoil 
of  so-called  Christian  civilization.  The 
non-Christian  peoples  have,  again,  bor¬ 
rowed  some  of  the  idea  weapons  with  which 
we  found  it  so  easy  to  fight  from  1914  to 
1918,  the  weapon  of  self-determination  in 
particular.  If  it  were  not  for  the  con- 


208 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


ceivably  tragic  outcome  of  the  new  tem¬ 
per,  it  would  be  humorous  to  note  how 
neatly  this  doctrine  of  self-determination 
has  been  turned  by  the  so-called  non- 
Christian  nations  themselves  from  a  state¬ 
ment  of  an  abstract  ideal  for  them  to  a 
definite  program  by  them.  Self-determina¬ 
tion  is  a  slogan  which  will  be  used  more 
and  more  by  the  East  itself  against  the 
exploitation  of  the  East  by  the  West. 

In  view  of  this  rising,  or  already  risen, 
temper  it  is  imperative  that  Christianity 
take  on  herself  the  responsibility  for  the 
Christianization  of  her  international  and 
racial  contacts.  The  Christian  mission¬ 
aries  go  out  to  different  types  of  nations, 
to  professedly  Christian  nations  with  a 
Christianity  like  that  of  Roman  Catholi¬ 
cism;  to  independent  nations  like  China  or 
Japan  whose  religion  is  non-Christian;  to 
nations  or  social  groups  like  India  and  the 
Philippines  which  are  dependencies  of  other 
groups;  to  the  so-called  nonadult  peoples 
like  the  African  tribes.  All  forms  of  mis¬ 
sionary  approach  are  to  proceed  on  a  deep 
and  sincere  respect  for  the  peoples  ap¬ 
proached.  This  is  the  absolutely  indispen- 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  COLOR  209 


sable  prerequisite.  It  means  henceforth  a 
shift  from  the  paternal  and  condescending 
well-wishing  which  would  patronize  the 
non-Christian,  or  the  Christian  of  different 
type  from  that  of  the  missionary;  it  means 
warfare  against  any  governmental  or  com¬ 
mercial  treatment  of  so-called  backward 
peoples  which  overlooks  the  claims  of  es¬ 
sential  humanity. 

I  think  I  know  something  of  the  short¬ 
comings  of  the  Roman  Catholic  system  as 
applied  to  missionary  tasks,  but  I  must 
never  forget  that  Roman  Catholicism,  in 
dealing  with  all  its  problems,  aims  to  meet 
certain  thoroughly  human  demands.  I  re¬ 
ject  as  ardently  as  any  Protestant  the 
overcentralization  of  the  Roman  Church, 
but  I  must  not  forget  that  in  spite  of  the 
overcentralization,  in  spite  of  any  part 
which  compulsion  through  fear  may,  as  is 
so  often  alleged,  play  in  Catholic  loyalty, 
in  spite  of  use  of  worldly  means  for  eccle¬ 
siastical  ends  and  in  spite,  too,  of  alliance 
with  controlling  classes  as  against  masses, 
still  the  Roman  Church  has  its  power 
through  meeting  some  outstanding  human 
needs.  Roman  Catholicism  is  the  pre- 


210 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


dominant  religion  in  some  countries  be¬ 
cause  the  peoples  of  those  countries  crave 
that  type.  In  their  attendance  upon  the 
Roman  Church  such  peoples  are  voting  for 
that  church.  Quite  possibly  they  ought  to 
desire  another  type;  but  he  who  goes  to 
preach  in  a  Roman  Catholic  country  must 
see  how  the  church  meets  the  demands  of 
that  country,  and  then  by  actual  life  show 
a  more  excellent  way.  Especially  is  it  folly 
to  talk  in  a  Catholic  country  of  the  low 
type  of  national  life  fostered  by  Catholi¬ 
cism,  for  then  the  national  pride  is 
wounded.  Fostering  is  impossible  without 
the  consent  of  the  fostered. 

Whatever  the  form  of  religion  in  the 
land  where  the  missionary  works  he  must 
try  to  understand  that  religion.  Religion 
is  like  democracy  or  morality  in  that  an 
underlying  spirit  may  take  on  diverse 
forms.  One  of  the  most  difficult  spiritual 
achievements  for  an  American  Christian, 
even  though  he  be  filled  with  a  spirit  of 
humble  devotion  to  his  Lord,  is  to  respect 
a  democracy  of  any  other  than  an  Anglo- 
Saxon  form.  In  a  genuine  sense  democracy 
is  not  so  new  as  we  sometimes  fancy.  The 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  COLOR  211 


popular  will  has  always  shaped  the  insti¬ 
tutions  of  many  countries  which  we  do  not 
think  of  as  democratic.  It  is  well  for  na¬ 
tions  to  have  the  most  up-to-date  machin¬ 
ery  of  democracy,  of  course,  but  sometimes 
a  thoroughly  democratic  expression  can  be 
made  through  imperfect  machinery.  We 
can  seldom  judge  an  institution  by  what 
the  institution  seems  on  the  face  of  it  to 
be.  For  illustration,  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  was  not  originally  in¬ 
tended  to  be  as  democratic  as  it  now  is. 
We  have  only  to  read  the  provisions  about 
the  election  of  the  President  by  the  elec¬ 
toral  college  to  be  convinced  of  the  un¬ 
democratic  intention  of  the  framers  of  the 
Constitution.  A  reader  of  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  may  declare  that  it  is  possible  for  the 
electoral  college  to  defeat  the  will  of  the 
people.  So  it  is,  on  paper,  but  now  utterly 
impossible  in  fact. 

The  forms  of  institutions  may  not  mean 
much,  but  the  spirit  back  of  them  means 
everything.  In  spirit  peoples  may  be  demo¬ 
cratic  while  anything  but  democratic  in 
form.  England  is  a  monarchy,  with  a  place 
for  lords  and  dukes,  but  the  people  rule. 


212 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


In  some  Latin  countries  there  is  a  reliance 
upon  revolutionary  methods  which  now  and 
again  prevents  diplomatic  recognition  by 
the  United  States  of  America — since  our 
nation  through  its  State  Department  as¬ 
sumes  to  be  the  judge  and  censor  of  all 
types  of  democracy.  Yet,  if  Latin- American 
revolution  meets  a  national  demand,  or  ex¬ 
presses  a  national  mood,  it  is  in  a  rough, 
fierce  way  democratic.  When  we  look  away 
to  peoples  like  the  Chinese  it  may  be  hard 
for  us  to  discern  anything  democratic,  but 
so  far  as  local  self-government  is  concerned 
China  is  the  most  democratic  nation  in  all 
history.  The  trouble  with  China  is  that 
public  opinion  counts  not  for  too  little  but 
for  too  much.  What  does  Chinese  “saving 
face5’  mean  if  not  that  the  determining  fac¬ 
tor  in  Chinese  life  is  the  opinion  of  the 
group?  The  Chinese  have  through  long 
periods  got  along  without  elaborate  legal  or 
police  or  military  systems  simply  by  the 
pressure  of  control  through  public  opinion. 

I  lay  emphasis  on  democracy  as  an  illus¬ 
tration  because  we  Americans  think  of  our¬ 
selves  as  specialists  in  democracy.  If  es¬ 
sential  democracy  can  exist  under  diverse 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  COLOR  213 


forms,  so  also  can  essential  morality.  The 
chief  element  in  morality  which  we  can 
think  of  as  at  all  absolute  is  the  will  to  do 
right;  but  just  what  is  right  in  a  given  set 
of  circumstances  must  be  determined  by 
study  of  those  circumstances.  The  same 
moral  impulse  in  two  persons  may  express 
itself  under  quite  opposed  forms  of  con¬ 
duct.  Religion  is  under  the  same  law .  A 
fundamentally  religious  spirit  can  express 
itself  in  various  ways  in  differing  racial 
groups. 

This  does  not  mean  that  all  forms  of 
democracy  or  morality  or  religion  are  on 
the  same  plane  of  value.  Surely,  some 
forms  of  democratic  procedure  are  better 
than  others,  and  moral  and  religious  im¬ 
pulses  may  express  themselves  in  utterly 
mistaken  and  perverted  forms.  The  mis¬ 
sionary  goes  forth  to  war  against  all  such 
mistakes,  but  he  must  not  fall  into  a  super¬ 
cilious  and  condescending  tendency  to  con¬ 
demn  or  to  patronize. 

We  have  spoken  of  trying  to  work  among 
nations  which  are  dependencies  like  India 
and  the  Philippines.  Here  the  problem  is 


214 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


tangled  and  intricate.  I  doubt  if  a  mis¬ 
sionary  can  be  of  surpassing  value  in  such 
countries  if  he  does  not  sincerely  become 
so  much  a  partisan  of  the  native  point  of 
view  as  to  be  willing  to  oppose,  if  need  be, 
the  point  of  view  of  his  own  nation.  If 
in  a  dependency  the  suspicion  gets  abroad 
into  the  social  consciousness  that  the  de¬ 
pendency  is  always  to  be  a  dependency, 
and  that  the  foreigner  is  always  to  rule, 
there  is  no  chance  of  preaching  the  gospel 
in  any  but  the  most  meager  measure.  In¬ 
dividual  souls  may  indeed  be  saved,  but 
there  is  no  hope  of  the  social  transforma¬ 
tion  which  comes  with  the  liberty  of  the 
sons  of  God.  Many  careful  observers  of 
mission  work — some  with  long  personal 
experience  in  India — say  that  even  in  spite 
of  all  the  material  advantages  which  Eng¬ 
land  has  undoubtedly  given  India,  China 
will  produce  a  better  type  of  Christianity 
in  the  long  run,  if  China  remains  free  while 
India  does  not  attain  to  practical  self- 
determination.  Dependent  peoples  to-day 
are  not  necessarily  in  suffering  through  de¬ 
pendency.  The  material  needs  of  India 
and  the  Philippines  are  probably  better 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  COLOR  215 


met  than  the  people  could  meet  them  with¬ 
out  dependency.  The  difficulty  is  more 
subtle.  A  tinge  of  hopelessness  sooner  or 
later  comes  into  the  spirit  of  the  dependent 
peoples  which  leads  to  dejection  in  some, 
rebellion  in  others,  contempt  for  foreigners 
in  still  others.  Was  it  altogether  gain  that 
the  experiences  of  the  Jews  deepened  their 
racial  consciousness  into  the  stiff,  unyield¬ 
ing  quality  which  we  know  them  to  possess? 
The  Jews  simply  would  not  be  crushed  in 
spirit.  That  was  to  their  credit.  They 
could  not  successfully  fight  as  a  nation 
against  Babylon  or  Rome.  They,  indeed, 
saved  the  one  religion  in  the  world  worth 
saving,  but  at  a  heavy  cost  to  themselves 
and  to  the  religion  itself.  Dejection  and 
rebelliousness  and  contempt  are  not  moods 
which  make  for  the  triumph  of  the  gospel. 
The  same  fundamental  respect  must  mark 
all  contacts  with  the  so-called  backward, 
nonadult  peoples.  The  dealing  of  the  for¬ 
ward  nations  with  the  backward  nations 
has  been  thus  far  one  almost  unrelieved 
horror — horror  continuing  down  to  the 
bombing  of  Hottentots  from  aeroplanes 
just  a  few  weeks  ago.  If  the  forward  na- 


216 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


tions  should  from  now  on  till  doomsday 
set  themselves  to  make  amends  for  wrongs 
done  backward  nations  in  the  past,  they 
could  not  wipe  out  the  stains  of  the  long 
outrage,  of  peoples  slaughtered  or  cor¬ 
rupted,  of  forms  of  culture  wiped  out  be¬ 
yond  recollection,  of  social  ideals  hurled 
down  to  earth.  The  first  step  toward  such 
atonement,  however,  is  this  respect  on 
which  I  lay  such  wearisome  emphasis.  The 
most  unenlightened  human  being  in  the 
heart  of  Africa  is  a  human  being,  and  must 
be  treated  as  such.  He  may  be  “non¬ 
adult,”  but  the  way  we  get  nonadults  on 
toward  manhood  is  to  begin  to  assume 
their  manhood  and  to  treat  them  as  men. 
Nonadults  are  the  last  persons  we  ought  to 
rob  or  kill. 

It  is  the  business  of  the  Christian  Church 
in  dealing  with  so-called  child,  or  nonadult 
peoples,  to  take  them  seriously  and  to 
teach  them  to  take  themselves  seriously. 
There  is  growing  recognition  throughout 
the  world  to-day  of  the  sinfulness  of  physi¬ 
cally  mistreating  or  robbing  these  so-called 
child  peoples,  though  there  are  still  enough 
dark  spots  that  need  looking  into.  There 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  COLOR  217 


is  not,  I  fear,  such  increasing  recognition  of 
the  wrong  and  peril  of  not  taking  the  prob¬ 
lem  of  the  nonadult  races  seriously. 

To  begin  near  home,  let  us  think  of  the 
Negro  problem  in  the  United  States.  It  is 
easy  to  dismiss  the  whole  Negro  question 
with  the  summary  observation  that  the 
Negro  is  a  child  and  belongs  to  a  child- 
race— this  too  in  contempt  of  the  fact  that 
Negro  labor  made  possible  the  development 
of  one  phase  of  American  civilization,  and 
that  the  Negro  has,  since  he  came  into  his 
freedom,  made  longer  strides  of  progress, 
in  the  given  period,  than  any  other  race  in 
the  history  of  the  world.  Now,  what  do 
we  do  when  we  call  the  Negro  a  child? 
Do  we  recognize  in  him  the  serious  prob¬ 
lem  that  we  recognize  in  childhood  as  such? 
Hardly.  We,  with  rich  good  humor,  en¬ 
courage  him  to  do  the  childish  things. 
Negro  comedy  is  refreshingly  funny  at 
times,  but  there  is  always  a  tinge  of  pathos 
in  the  reflection  that  we  applaud  the  Negro 
most  loudly  when  he  is  expressing  himself 
in  the  fashion  that  brings  out  most  clearly 
his  childish  traits.  Years  ago  multitudes 
of  men  were  inclined  to  treat  the  Negro  in 


218 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


kindly  manner  if  he  would  acquiesce  in 
being  a  slave.  To-day  many  of  us  would 
be  glad  to  treat  the  Negro  kindly  if  he 
would  be  content  to  remain  a  child.  It  is 
the  stride  out  toward  manhood  which  dis¬ 
turbs  us.  The  rising  tide  of  color  is  a  good 
sign  if  it  means,  as  it  largely  does,  that  the 
races  which  have  been  looked  upon  as  non¬ 
adult  are  insisting  upon  being  taken  seri¬ 
ously. 

At  the  bottom  of  all  sound  missionary 
policy  must  lie  this  respect  for  men  as 
men.  It  is  altogether  doubtful  if  pity  can 
be  an  adequate  missionary  motive,  for  pity 
is  too  apt  to  fall  away  from  respect.  It 
may  even  end  in  contempt.  To  the  credit 
of  the  missionary  be  it  said  that  though 
his  work  often  begins  in  pity  it  usually 
moves  up  toward  increase  of  respect.  It  is 
interesting  to  note  this  deepening  transfor¬ 
mation  in  a  book  like  that  of  Dr.  Albert 
Schweitzer,  On  the  Edge  of  the  Primeval 
Forest .  Dr.  Schweitzer  was  so  stirred  by 
the  dream  of  working  for  the  relief  of  dis¬ 
tress  in  Africa  that  he  resigned  a  theo¬ 
logical  professorship,  trained  himself  in 
medicine  and  surgery,  found  the  money 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  COLOR  219 


for  a  missionary  enterprise,  and  plunged 
into  equatorial  Africa  on  his  errand  of 
pitying  mercy.  It  is  most  inspiring  to 
note  the  growth  of  Schweitzer’s  respect  for 
the  Africans  with  whom  he  worked  as  we 
read  the  pages  of  his  book. 


Granted,  then,  the  basis  of  respect,  what 
shall  be  our  practical  attitude  toward  non- 
Christian  peoples?  The  day  is  gone  when 
we  can  put  civilization  on  peoples  by  force. 
There  must  be  consent  to  accept  and  co¬ 
operation  in  the  upward  movement.  It  is 
doubtful  if  peoples  have  ever  been  cul¬ 
turally  transformed  except  by  their  own 
consent.  The  most  serious  attempt  at 
Christianization  by  force  ever  made  was 
that  of  Spain  in  America.  On  the  surface 
it  appears  that  Spain  won  a  huge  civilizing 
victory  by  the  sword.  The  Spanish  lan¬ 
guage,  the  Spanish  laws,  the  Spanish  cus¬ 
toms  were  introduced  over  continent 
lengths.  Still,  the  victory  was  only  to 
the  extent  that  the  peoples  accepted  all 
this  themselves.  So  far  as  actual  force 
went  the  best  persons  of  the  peoples  whom 
the  Spanish  met  were  killed  off. 


220 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


What,  then,  shall  we  give  the  non- 
Christian  peoples?  I  am  not  sure  that  we 
do  well  to  give  them  anything  in  the  out¬ 
right  sense.  What,  then,  shall  we  put 
before  them,  or  recommend  to  them,  or 
persuade  them  to  take? 

The  first  advice  is  that  we  give  them  the 
material  instruments  of  our  civilization. 
That  is  sound  enough  if  we  can  transmit 
with  the  tool  the  spiritual  mastery  over 
the  tool.  Even  backward  races  learn 
quickly  to  master  physically  the  tools  of 
the  more  favored  races.  The  Red  Indians 
can  learn  to  shoot  the  white  man’s  rifle 
most  skillfully,  but  an  idea  of  revengeful 
fighting  quite  inconsequential  among  war¬ 
riors  using  bows  and  arrows  may  be  deadly 
when  a  people  keep  the  old  idea  and  shoot 
the  new  weapon.  Still,  the  users  of  guns 
among  the  professedly  favored  races  have 
not  been  as  yet  conspicuously  successful  in 
controlling  the  guns.  It  is  to  be  questioned 
whether  man’s  ability  to  use  explosives  has 
not  far  outrun  his  sense  of  responsibility  in 
the  use  of  them.  Lowell  used  to  say  opti¬ 
mistically  that  God  would  not  have  al¬ 
lowed  men  to  get  hold  of  the  match  box  if 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  COLOR  221 


the  universe  had  not  been  fire-proof.  Man 
has  certainly  got  hold  of  the  match  box, 
and  it  is  not  by  any  means  clear  that  the 
universe  is  fire-proof. 

I  was  not,  however,  thinking  of  guns, 
except  for  purposes  of  illustration.  We  are 
getting  nearer  the  heart  of  the  matter  when 
we  consider  all  the  material  enginery  of 
modern  industrialism.  There  are  many 
among  us  who  look  out  toward  a  land  like 
China,  a  nation  too  independent  and  too 
strong  to  be  forced  against  her  will,  and 
say  that  what  China  needs  is  industrializa¬ 
tion,  that  nobody  is  going  to  force  indus¬ 
trialization  on  China,  that  all  that  is  neces¬ 
sary  is  to  open  the  mill  doors  and  Chinese 
will  come  in  by  the  hundred  thousand. 

Let  us  try  to  follow  out  in  imagination 
this  process  of  the  industrialization  of 
China.  It  is  manifest  that  the  mighty 
tools  of  industrialization  must  come  from 
Europe  and  America.  China  has  not  the 
capital  at  command  to  build  railways  and 
mills  and  to  open  mines  and  to  develop 
water  and  electric  power.  So  Western  cap¬ 
ital  puts  the  mills  on  the  banks  of  the 


m  LIVING  TOGETHER 

Yangtse,  let  us  say.  The  people  begin  to 
flock  in.  Wages  are  dreadfully  low,  judged 
by  Western  standards,  but  they  are  better 
than  the  wages  to  which  the  Chinese  work¬ 
ers  have  been  accustomed.  Women  and 
children  are  employed,  but  otherwise  they 
might  earn  nothing.  For  a  time  all  goes 
promisingly — until  the  industrialization  be¬ 
gins  fundamentally  to  alter  the  character 
of  Chinese  life.  That  life  has  always  been 
primarily  agricultural.  Eighty-five  per  cent 
of  the  Chinese  are  employed  in  rural  pur-' 
suits  in  one  form  or  another,  the  cultiva¬ 
tion  of  the  soil  being  of  that  intensive  sort 
known  as  spade  culture.  Under  indus¬ 
trialization  more  and  more  people  will  go 
to  the  mill  centers.  As  long  as  mill  work 
is  intended  only  to  eke  out  the  income  of 
the  farm,  as  long  as  it  provides  work  for 
those  who  can  be  spared  for  a  few  weeks 
at  a  time  from  farm  labor,  no  considerable 
harm  may  be  done.  To  take  large  num¬ 
bers  of  Chinese  off  the  soil  permanently, 
however,  might  make  a  change  in  Chinese 
society  little  short  of  disastrous.  The  fam¬ 
ily  units  would  be  destroyed,  the  popula¬ 
tion  as  a  whole  might  increase  to  such  an 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  COLOR  22$ 

extent  that  a  season  of  unemployment 
would  be  as  fatal  as  a  flood  of  the  Yellow 
River.  If  the  products  of  an  industrialized 
China  were  thrown  on  the  markets  of  the 
world,  China  could  undersell  other  nations 
which  have  higher  wage  scales.  Then  we 
should  have  laws  looking  not  merely  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  Chinese  from  America  but 
to  the  exclusion  of  Chinese  goods  from  the 
entire  Occident  as  well — with  havoc  for 
China  and  for  the  world.  The  Chinese 
work  hard  now,  desperately  hard,  but  at 
tasks  which  allow  some  initiative.  The 
farmer  is  his  own  boss — he  labors  at  his 
own  rate  of  speed.  The  shop  worker  at 
present  has  interminably  long  hours,  but 
the  work  is  on  a  task  which  he  can  shape 
as  he  will,  stopping  now  and  again  to  chat 
or  to  smoke  for  two  or  three  minutes. 
Western  machinery  is  likely  to  be  deadly 
to  the  Chinese.  Even  the  rickshaw  is  a 
horrible  destroyer  of  Chinese  vitality.  The 
rickshaw  driver’s  life,  as  a  rickshaw  driver, 
lasts  about  six  years.  If  he  survives  six 
years,  he  must  change  his  work. 

Now,  what  forces  can  make  the  indus¬ 
trialization  of  China  safe  for  the  Chinese? 


224 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


Can  we  depend  upon  the  broad-minded 
humanity  of  Western  capital?  Conceiv¬ 
ably  such  capital  might  do  much.  It 
might  insist  upon  safety  devices  on 
machinery,  upon  the  best  health  condi¬ 
tions  in  the  factories,  upon  kindly  treat¬ 
ment  of  workers  in  all  their  contacts  with 
overseers.  There  would  be  a  stopping 
point,  however.  Capital  would  surely  stop 
in  China  where  it  stops  in  America,  namely, 
at  giving  the  worker  any  real  control  over 
conditions  under  which  he  works,  or  over 
the  general  management  of  the  enterprise 
in  which  he  is  engaged.  Capital  would  not 
consider  itself  in  China  for  missionary  pur¬ 
poses.  It  is  there  to  make  money. 

So  far  as  Western  civilization  is  con¬ 
cerned  we  would  have  to  admit  that  our 
industrial  instruments  would  be  put  upon 
the  Chinese  without  the  safeguards  with 
which  we  hedge  about  industrialism  in 
Europe  and  America.  Industrialism  has 
been  developed  in  the  Western  countries 
slowly,  and  as  soon  as  a  danger  has  been 
discovered  some  mechanical  or  legal  ap¬ 
pliance  has  been  contrived  to  lessen  the 
danger.  Public  sentiment  has  conditioned 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  COLOR  £25 


the  use  of  our  industrial  creations.  Even 
with  us,  nevertheless,  the  evils  of  industry 
are  still  a  threat  to  our  civilization.  How 
much  worse  when  this  industrial  system  is 
put  outright  before  a  land  like  China,  a 
land  with  a  huge  labor  force,  with  none  of 
the  legal  protections  of  the  West!  Public 
sentiment  in  the  Western  lands  cannot 
adequately  govern  the  operation  of  West¬ 
ern  capital  when  that  capital  is  invested  in 
factories  in  Eastern  lands. 

There  is  nothing  left  except  for  the 
Chinese  to  handle  the  matter  themselves. 
This  they  are  indeed  able  to  do,  after  a 
fashion.  The  Chinese  have  a  talent  for 
and  skill  in  organization  hardly  credible 
till  it  is  seen  at  work.  They  know  how  to 
strike  and  to  boycott  like  past-masters. 
If,  however,  Western  labor  wars  are  to  be 
transferred  to  the  Orient,  the  outlook  is 
not  bright.  The  whole  problem  is  dark. 
If  China  lets  in  industrialism  without  any 
safeguards,  the  Chinese  people  will  be 
hopelessly  exploited.  If  only  supplies  of 
raw  materials  would  be  used  up,  the  prob¬ 
lem  would  be  bad  enough,  but  the  waste 
would  be  in  human  forces.  If  China  begins 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


226 

to  fight  against  industrialization  from  with¬ 
out,  she  may  find  herself  confronted  by 
Western  militarism  in  its  worst  aspect.  If 
as  a  result  of  disturbance  Western  capital¬ 
ism  withdraws  altogether,  China  will  suf¬ 
fer  a  lack  of  development  which  she  needs. 

If  Christianity  could  be  introduced  in  its 
wider  phases,  the  danger  could  be  con¬ 
trolled.  If  capitalism  could  be  tamed  at 
home  and  its  ideal  of  gain  replaced  by  the 
ideal  of  service,  if  the  Chinese  would  so 
take  hold  of  Christianity  as  to  get  a  new 
insight  into  the  value  of  the  individual 
human  life,  we  could  breathe  easily.  This 
all  brings  us  back  to  the  consideration  that 
we  have  here  a  world-wide  problem  in 
which  world-wide  factors  must  cooperate. 
The  rising  tide  of  Chinese  color  is  a  meas¬ 
ure  of  protest  against  Western  industrial¬ 
ism,  and  is  so  far  so  good.  The  world  is 
not  safe,  however,  until  Chinese  public 
opinion  is  essentially  Christian,  and  Chi¬ 
nese  public  opinion  cannot  be  conquered 
from  the  outside  save  by  persuasion  and 
reasonableness.  Nor  is  there  much  sense 
in  talking  of  the  Christianization  of  Chinese 
public  opinion  with  the  public  opinion  of 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  COLOR  m 

so-called  Christian  nations  so  far  from 
Christian. 

Let  us  turn  from  industry  to  science.  A 
traveler  in  China  after  a  short  trip  comes 
to  the  conclusion  that  what  China  needs 
is  Western  science,  or  the  use  of  the  scien¬ 
tific  method  in  all  phases  of  her  activity, 
not  merely  in  industry  but  in  all  phases  of 
life.  He  deplores  the  rule-of-thumb  inac¬ 
curacies  which  come  with  the  lack  of  all 
material  or  intellectual  instruments  of  pre¬ 
cision.  He  is  horrified  especially  at  the 
crude  methods  with  which  disease  is  met 
and  at  the  general  backwardness  of  sani¬ 
tary  knowledge.  The  Chinese  language 
seems  to  him  to  be  a  bungling  contrivance 
which  will  have  to  be  scrapped  before  there 
can  be  any  long  leaps  ahead.  It  would  be 
impossible  to  teach  science  with  a  language 
like  that  of  China  as  the  means  of  com¬ 
munication. 

This  all  seems  simple  at  a  superficial 
glance,  but  at  bottom  we  have  here  an 
enormous  difficulty.  Science  cannot  be  in¬ 
troduced  to  a  people  without  that  people’s 
active  consent.  There  is  no  way  of  de- 


228 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


veloping  intellectual  precision  except  by 
self-effort.  It  is  impossible  to  change  a 
condition  as  to  the  health  of  a  community 
without  the  intelligent  cooperation  of  that 
community.  Experiences  like  the  fight 
against  cholera  in  Canton,  which  was  suc¬ 
cessful,  show  how  well  large  groups  of 
Chinese  can  work  together  for  a  scientific 
result,  but  the  adoption  of  modern  medi¬ 
cine  and  sanitation  requires  the  persuasive 
education  of  hundreds  of  thousands.  Such 
effort  in  the  nature  of  things  calls  for  will¬ 
ing,  hearty,  unreserved  consent,  and  the 
right  use  of  science  demands  the  absorp¬ 
tion  of  a  spirit  of  humanity  and  an  em¬ 
phasis  on  human  values,  an  absorption  and 
emphasis  by  no  means  yet  achieved  in  the 
scientific  nations.  The  World  War  was  an 
illustration  of  the  deadliness  of  the  union 
of  a  method  completely  scientific  with  a 
temper  incompletely  Christian.  All  of  this 
means  a  call  for  the  presentation  of  the 
deeper  and  wider  Christian  life  in  its  most 
convincing  and  attractive  persuasiveness. 
The  difficulty  here  is  immense  but  not  in¬ 
superable.  We  are  caught  in  a  movement 
from  which  we  cannot  draw  back.  West- 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  COLOR  229 


era  science  will  go  into  China.  It  ought 
not  to  go  in  without  Christianity.  It  is 
the  duty  of  Christianity  to  enter  China. 
It  cannot  force  an  entrance,  but  must  place 
itself  in  a  position  and  attitude  where  it 
will  be  freely  accepted  by  the  Chinese. 

This  carries  us  far.  It  gives  to  the 
Chinese  the  right  and  power  to  shape  the 
type  of  Christianity  which  is  to  be  Chinese 
— the  same  right  which  we  have  insisted 
on  through  the  centuries  for  ourselves. 
How  much  did  early  Christianity  carry 
into  the  Roman  Empire  except  Jesus — his 
thought  of  God  and  of  man,  his  life  and 
his  death?  From  the  very  beginning  the 
appropriating  power  of  the  converts  went 
to  work  utilizing  Greek,  Roman,  Oriental 
elements  to  set  forth  Jesus.  It  was  so  in 
the  beginning,  it  is  so  now,  it  will  be  so  all 
through  the  course  of  human  history. 

This  does  not  mean  that  the  Oriental 
peoples  will  create  a  new  Christianity, 
though  Christianity  will  vastly  expand 
their  creative  powers.  Progress  will  go 
forward  by  a  process  of  selection.  Out  of 
the  variety  and  profusion  of  Christian  be¬ 
liefs  the  Orientals  will  make  their  own 


230 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


selection,  probably  choosing  what  falls  in 
best  with  Oriental  aptitudes.  Some  be¬ 
liefs  quite  important  to  us  will  be  allowed 
to  atrophy  through  disuse.  Others  which 
we  may  not  think  of  as  especially  vital 
may  be  seized  upon  for  large  elaboration. 
As  long  as  the  Christ  of  God  and  the  God 
of  Christ  are  kept  at  the  center  of  this 
development  no  harm  can  come.  An  or¬ 
ganism  does  not  swell  from  an  acorn  into 
a  tree.  It  begins  to  grow,  and  its  growth 
means  that  it  selects  for  itself  some  ele¬ 
ments  from  its  environment  and  casts  some 
previously  useful  elements  out  of  itself — 
all  in  accord  with  the  law  of  life  inherent 
in  the  organism  itself. 

Recurring  for  the  moment  to  China,  we 
may  speak  of  the  exceedingly  practical 
nature  of  the  Chinese.  A  great  French 
student  of  Chinese  life,  Eugene  Simon,  has 
pointed  out  that  the  Chinese  religion  is  the 
only  one  that  has  not  represented  manual 
labor  as  a  curse.  Simon  may  somewhat 
have  overstated  his  thesis,  but  he  has 
grasped  an  essential  truth.  It  is  likely 
that  the  development  of  Christianity  in 
Chinese  hands  will  seize  on  its  practical 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  COLOR  231 


phases,  A  year  or  two  ago  there  was  hope 
in  some  circles  and  fear  in  others  that  the 
Chinese  would  take  hold  of  the  extreme 
forms  of  premillenarianism  which  are  so 
popular  with  some  Christian  teachers  at 
home  and  abroad  to-day.  After  the  Shang¬ 
hai  Christian  Conference  in  May,  1922,  it 
became  clear  that  there  was  small  likeli¬ 
hood  of  such  acceptance  of  premillenarian¬ 
ism  by  the  Chinese.  The  doctrine  is  too 
much  up  in  the  air,  too  spectacular,  too 
remote  from  the  obvious  significance  of 
Christianity.  The  Chinese  will  no  doubt 
listen  to  the  more  fine-spun  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  doctrines  with  due  deference  and 
respect,  but  that  will  be  all. 

This  brings  us  to  consider  the  wisdom  of 
getting  the  power  of  the  church  in  China 
into  Chinese  hands  at  the  earliest  prac¬ 
ticable  date.  We  must  hold  to  an  inter¬ 
national  church,  provided  we  can  get  one 
that  is  truly  international.  A  national 
church  brings  into  Christianity  something 
that  may  prove  alien  to  Christianity,  for 
in  its  essence  Christianity  is  not  merely 
national.  A  Christian  organization  may 


£32 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


indeed  take  advantage  of  a  national  spirit 
to  set  Christianity  on  high,  but  the  na¬ 
tional  spirit  must  be  kept  in  the  secondary 
place.  Otherwise  let  a  war  drum  sound 
and  the  national  spirit  takes  control,  to 
the  utter  exclusion  of  the  spirit  of  Christ. 

The  difficulty  is  that  we  do  not  yet  have 
an  international  Protestant  Church.  Take 
the  situation  in  Methodism.  The  General 
Conference  is  the  supreme  law-making 
body.  The  overwhelming  majority  in  that 
body  come  from  the  United  States.  The 
delegates  from  China  and  India  are  in¬ 
terested  onlookers.  The  Negroes  from  the 
United  States  are  the  only  representatives 
of  any  race  other  than  the  white  who  get 
any  effective  vote  except  when  an  issue  is 
decided  by  a  narrow  margin.  Once  in  a 
General  Conference  of  which  I  was  a  mem¬ 
ber  it  appeared  that  a  particular  measure 
which  had  carried  by  a  small  margin  had 
been  supported  by  all  the  votes  of  foreign 
delegates.  I  shall  not  soon  forget  the 
horror  with  which  an  ecclesiastical  leader, 
himself  an  elequent  advocate  of  missions, 
cried  out  against  the  foreign  votes  settling 
a  question  which  was  distinctively  peculiar 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  COLOR  233 


to  the  United  States.  Yet  that  same 
churchman  had  repeatedly  voted  to  settle 
questions  distinctively  foreign. 

When  I  say  that  the  power  should  more 
and  more  pass  to  the  foreign  field  itself  I 
mean  to  the  natives  on  that  field.  Often 
missionaries  clamor  for  more  power  for  the 
foreign  field,  but  all  they  may  mean  is  that 
they  do  not  want  the  missionary  policies 
settled  in  a  New  York  office.  They  may 
not  mean  that  they  want  the  natives  to 
have  decisive  power.  It  is  bad  to  have 
bishops  or  secretaries  from  America  clothed 
with  large  authority  over  foreign  workers 
in  the  land  of  those  workers  themselves.  It 
is  doubtful  if  any  but  the  exceptional 
human  being  is  wise  enough  or  good  enough 
to  have  authority  in  spiritual  concerns  over 
a  native  in  another  country.  Such  power 
is  almost  always  an  evil  for  the  officials 
themselves.  Episcopacies  and  secretary¬ 
ships  are  safe  only  when  those  who  have 
to  undergo  the  supervision  will  talk  back, 
if  need  be.  The  most  sturdy  Chinese  or 
Indians,  through  considerations  of  courtesy, 
if  of  nothing  else,  are  too  reluctant  to 
speak  in  criticism  or  protest  against  Amer- 


234 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


ican  ecclesiastical  officials.  If  the  super¬ 
vised  will  not  speak  out,  the  supervisor  al¬ 
most  inevitably  becomes  a  dictator,  often 
an  autocrat,  sometimes  a  tyrant,  occasion¬ 
ally  a  bully. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  those  com¬ 
ing  into  Christianity  from  outside  peoples 
must  be  persuaded  to  take,  or  at  least  to 
try  out,  the  elements  of  Christianity  which 
promise  most  for  those  new  converts. 
Teachers  do  better  as  teachers  when  they 
are  stripped  of  authority.  The  world  as  a 
whole  is  not  an  educational  institution  run 
on  the  elective  plan,  but  Christianity  has 
to  be  run  on  the  elective  plan  if  it  is  to 
succeed  at  all.  The  Christian  freely  chooses 
to  be  a  Christian  in  the  first  place,  and  he 
elects  and  selects  from  Christianity  there¬ 
after  the  parts  that  minister  to  his  spiritual 
needs.  He  himself  is  the  best  judge  as  to 
what  meets  those  needs. 

Will  it  not  make  for  less  efficient  Chris¬ 
tian  progress  if  we  turn  over  to  Chinese  or 
Indian  peoples  themselves  larger  and  larger 
measures  of  ecclesiastical  responsibility?  It 
will,  at  least  for  a  time,  but  here  we  have 
to  ask  the  old  democratic  question:  Which 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  COLOR  235 


is  better  for  a  people — a  good  system  ad¬ 
ministered  from  outside,  or  one  not  so 
good  administered  by  the  people  them¬ 
selves?  Remember  that  we  are  asking  that 
missionaries  still  work  on  foreign  fields,  but 
that  they  should  not  have  control.  Let 
their  power  be  that  of  influence  rather 
than  that  of  authority.  The  whole  idea  of 
authority  should  drop  out  of  their  minds. 
They  should  even  beware  of  any  appear¬ 
ance  of  alliance  with  governmental  or  dip¬ 
lomatic  authorities,  except  as  they  appear 
as  advocates  of  the  people  themselves 
among  whom  they  are  working.  Mission¬ 
aries  should  avoid  making  any  appeal  to 
governmental  authority,  or  giving  impres¬ 
sion  that  any  government,  home  or  for¬ 
eign,  is  “back  of  them.”  The  pernicious 
practice  of  seeking  the  help  of  “key-men” 
in  a  foreign  land  is  pernicious  because  in 
almost  all  foreign  lands  key -men  are  key- 
men  because  of  relation  to  governmental 
or  commercial  interests.  In  any  case  they 
stand  for  the  type  of  authority  that  thwarts 
the  gospel.  The  authority  sought  for 
should  be  that  of  the  growing  Christian 
public  sentiment  of  the  people  among  whom 


23  6 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


the  missionary  works — and  that  authority 
should  find  its  own  expression. 

The  relation  of  Christianity  to  the  so- 
called  nonadult  peoples  constitutes  the 
hardest  problem.  China  and  Japan  and 
India  can  be  trusted  ultimately  to  shift 
for  themselves.  As  to  the  nonadult  peo¬ 
ples  it  may  be  said  that  the  duty  of  the 
church  is  to  stand  as  their  champion 
against  the  encroachments  of  the  white 
man’s  civilization.  It  is  doubtful  if  Chris¬ 
tian  civilization  can  ever  actually  overtake 
the  Christian  ideals,  so  that  the  contact  of 
civilization  with  noncivilization  must  be 
always  watched.  Suppose  the  three  great 
principles  that  admittedly  would  make  an 
ideal  relationship  between  the  so-called 
forward  nations  and  the  so-called  back¬ 
ward  nations  to  be  universally  adopted — 
the  principle  that  the  relationship  is  to  be 
conceived  of  in  terms  of  the  good  of  all 
humanity,  that  the  relationship  must  be  for 
the  welfare  of  the  backward  peoples,  that 
if  any  incidental  advantage  accrue,  after 
the  above  conditions  have  been  met,  such 
advantage  go  to  the  civilized  nation  imme- 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  COLOR  237 


diately  responsible  for  a  given  backward 
nation.  Let  us  assume  that  these  prin¬ 
ciples  are  heartily  and  unanimously  put 
into  effect  by  the  nations  of  the  earth.  In 
every  one  of  the  principles  there  are  possi¬ 
bilities  of  abuse. 

Take  the  first  principle,  the  good  of  all 
humanity.  Here  are  mighty  riches  in  the 
tropics.  Are  these  riches  the  property  of 
the  races  who  happen  to  live  in  the  tropics? 
Let  us  imagine  a  tropical  island  on  which 
grows  a  valuable  medicinal  plant  of  im¬ 
portance  to  mankind  everywhere.  The 
natives  do  not  cultivate  the  plant  except 
in  the  most  haphazard  fashion.  They  do 
not  bring  out  to  its  full  possibilities  the 
development  of  the  herb.  There  are  com¬ 
paratively  few  native  islanders  all  told.  Is 
it  fair  to  suffering  humanity  to  allow  this 
handful  of  natives  to  stand  in  the  way  of 
medicinal  progress  just  because  they  hap¬ 
pen  to  own  the  island?  Does  not  humanity 
have  a  right  of  eminent  domain  over  all 
such  treasures?  Does  the  mere  fact  that 
the  natives  were  born  on  the  island  give 
them  the  right  to  raise  or  neglect  the  me¬ 
dicinal  plant  as  they  please? 


238 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


We  do  not  go  far  on  this  track  till  we 
find  ourselves  in  an  ethical  thicket.  I  do 
not  see  how,  in  such  a  supposed  case,  we 
could  deny  that  the  interests  of  humanity 
have  the  right  of  way.  If  the  people  of  the 
island  were  fairly  treated,  if  they  were  not 
robbed  or  abused,  I  can  see  most  excellent 
moral  reasons  for  civilization’s  taking  over 
the  island,  giving  the  owners  reasonable 
compensation,  and  cultivating  the  plant 
according  to  most  scientific  methods.  The 
case  as  thus  assumed  seems  clear. 

The  questions  arise  when  we  get  away 
from  the  assumed  case  and  move  to  actual 
facts.  What  about  rubber,  oil,  coal,  water¬ 
power?  Are  we  to  conclude  that  because 
possibilities  like  these  are  locked  up  in 
noncivilized  countries  the  countries  out¬ 
side  are  to  have  nothing  to  say  about  the 
development  of  such  resources?  The  only 
way  out  is  a  conscientiously  assumed  trus¬ 
teeship  on  the  part  of  the  civilized  nations, 
a  trusteeship  that  will  guard  the  resources 
themselves  against  wastefulness  and  the 
natives  against  chance  of  robbery. 

Why  not  leave  all  this  to  the  private 
initiative  of  present-day  capitalism?  Why 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  COLOR  £39 


not,  indeed!  How  many  millions  of  brass 
rods  and  glass  beads  would  it  require  to 
make  an  adequate  return  to  central 
African  tribes  for  the  loss  of  rights  in  tropi¬ 
cal  possessions  which  they  have  always 
held?  What  reason  is  there  for  letting  the 
immense  profits  of  such  tropical  enterprises 
go  to  the  private  pockets  of  investors  five 
thousand  miles  from  the  tropics?  The 
safety  is  in  action  for  the  benefit  of  man¬ 
kind  as  a  whole,  with  conscience  kept 
alert  and  sensitive — oversensitive  rather 
than  undersensitive — by  the  insistence  of 
Christian  leaders  or  agitators.  Here  would 
be  a  worthy  field  for  the  agitator’s  con¬ 
stant  lashing  and  scourging.  Only  such 
agitation  would  keep  the  international  con¬ 
science  from  becoming  drowsy  and  callous. 

The  second  principle  is  regard  for  the 
good  of  the  backward  peoples  dealt  with. 
Here  again  is  grave  danger.  To  ordinary 
civilized  man  it  seems  a  good  thing  for  the 
uncivilized  to  be  put  to  work.  The  most 
distressing  aspect  of  African  life,  let  us  say, 
to  the  professedly  civilized  man  is  the  lazi¬ 
ness  of  that  life.  Now,  to  get  the  riches  of 
the  African  tropics  out  to  the  world  re- 


240 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


quires  labor,  labor  that  the  white  man 
cannot  perform  as  can  the  black.  It  is 
clear  indeed  that  the  conquest  of  the 
tropics  is  to  go  far  enough  to  enable  small 
numbers  of  white  men  to  live  in  them.  By 
precautions  against  mosquito  infection,  by 
artificial  cooling  of  houses,  by  regular  vaca¬ 
tions  in  a  temperate  clime  it  is  possible  for 
white  men  to  exist  in  the  tropics.  The 
heavy  manual  work,  however,  must  be  done 
by  black  men.  Three  reasons  can  be  given 
for  making  the  labor  of  the  black  man 
compulsory:  the  work  is  necessary  if  the 
world  is  to  have  tropical  products;  the 
work  is  but  a  fair  return  by  the  black  for 
the  blessings  of  security  and  protection 
which  he  receives  from  the  outside  nation, 
a  return  paid  in  labor  rather  than  in  taxes; 
the  cultivation  of  habits  of  industry  is  good 
for  the  black  man.  In  the  face  of  the  fact 
that  unselfish  missionaries — undoubted 
friends  of  the  African — have  given  their 
approval  to  schemes  of  compulsory  labor, 
we  must  not  hastily  pass  judgment  against 
such  policy. 

Still,  the  whole  plan  bristles  with  perils. 
Let  it  be  granted  that  with  a  scheme  of 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  COLOR  241 


compulsory  labor  the  overseeing  nation  will 
take  care  that  no  abuse  at  all  remediable  is 
tolerated.  Nevertheless,  the  attempt  to  fit 
dwellers  in  a  tropic  land  into  anything  at 
all  resembling  Western  industrialism  is  a 
most  hazardous  venture.  It  is  not  so 
much  that  the  native’s  body  does  not 
make  its  adjustment  as  that  the  native’s 
mind  does  not  make  its  adjustment.  Then 
we  have  all  the  horrors  of  rebellion  stamped 
out  by  the  white  man’s  punishments,  or 
we  have  the  death  of  the  native  soul,  which 
is  worse.  The  sluggishness  engendered  by 
the  climate  is  not  the  only  reason  why  the 
African  has  been  an  unwilling  worker  for 
outsiders.  All  through  the  centuries  the 
black  man  has  worked  hard  enough,  but 
with  a  tendency  to  slipshodness.  All 
through  the  centuries  the  African  has  had 
the  idea — a  just  idea  too — that  he  has 
been  working  to  make  some  one  else  rich. 
A  whole  civilization  in  the  Southern  States 
of  America  was  built  up  on  his  practically 
unrequited  toil.  Compulsory  labor,  to  an 
African,  must  be  only  slightly  different 
from  slavery.  The  African  may  be  a  be¬ 
nighted  mind,  but  he  has  always  known 


242 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


that  he  has  required  little  of  food  and 
clothing  for  himself.  He  has  known  that 
he  has  worked  much  longer  every  day 
than  the  hour  or  two  required  to  meet  his 
own  needs.  Where  has  the  rest  of  the 
product  of  his  labor  gone?  Even  a  non¬ 
adult  mind  can  ask  that  question;  and  the 
adult  mind  is  not  overprompt  in  replying. 

It  is  almost  impossible  for  any  mind  to 
know  how  to  set  about  doing  good  for  a 
mind  of  another  race,  especially  when  the 
minds  are  separated  by  the  abyss  between 
differing  stages  of  cultural  development. 
The  intention  on  the  part  of  the  Christian 
nations  to  do  good  to  other  nations  less  ad¬ 
vanced  than  themselves  is  worthy  enough, 
but  it  must  be  supplemented  by  almost 
superhuman  intelligence  and  imagination. 
When  it  is  agreed  that  the  particular  ad¬ 
vanced  nation  responsible  for  a  backward 
nation  is  to  have  whatever  advantage 
there  may  be  left  after  the  backward  peo¬ 
ple  has  been  benefited,  the  problem  is 
serious  indeed. 

There  are  those  who,  confronted  by  such 
a  maze  of  difficulties,  declare  that  the  at¬ 
tempt  to  civilize  and  Christianize  the  back- 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  COLOR  243 


ward  peoples  is  a  failure.  Let  such  peoples 
go  their  own  paths.  Let  them  keep  their 
own  type  of  cultural  life.  Better  have 
them  return  to  the  old  ways  of  tribal  war 
and  slaughter  than  to  have  them  ruled 
over  by  outsiders.  Their  own  religions, 
crude  as  they  are  from  our  point  of  view, 
are  better  than  religions  imposed  from 
without. 

This  would  abandon  the  problem  alto¬ 
gether.  It  is  not,  however,  justifiable  to 
have  peoples  now  backward  go  backward 
still  further.  Is  it  preferable  to  have  a 
Jmedicine-man  stick  a  needle  into  a  baby’s 
eye  to  let  out  a  devil  rather  than  to  have  a 
skilled  surgeon  operate  to  let  out  pus? 
The  Christian  idea  of  God  and  man  is 
better  than  any  non-Christian  idea  of  God 
and  man.  These  lines  are  written,  how¬ 
ever,  in  the  conviction  that  the  choice  is 
not  between  compulsion  and  abandonment. 
There  is  a  more  excellent  way,  even  the 
way  of  Paul’s  lofty  flight  in  the  thirteenth 
chapter  of  First  Corinthians.  In  respect 
and  charity  for  the  non-Christian  the  goods 
of  Christianity  can  be  set  before  the  non- 
Christian  world,  for  the  non-Christian  to 


244 


LIVING  TOGETHER 


select  from  them,  to  receive  them  with 
sympathetic  instruction  and -persuasion  by 
the  Christian,  to  receive  them,  as  the 
scholastics  put  it,  after  the  manner  of  the 
one  receiving.  The  grasping  hand  will  put 
its  mark  upon  what  it  grasps.  Christian¬ 
ity  will  “seize”  the  non-Christian  world, 
and  that  world  will  “seize”  Christianity, 
the  seizures  being  mutually  effective  and 
determining.  In  the  end  will  come  that 
world-wide  absorption  in  a  world-wide  task 
which  will  make  a  world-wide  body  of 
Christ,  with  the  organs  of  that  body  de¬ 
veloping  into  finer  and  richer  diversity  and 
distinctiveness. 


! 


I  I 


■J  ' 


Princeton 


fieologica 


Seminary  Libraries 


012  01236  3059 


Date  Due 


18  3 


«•  lit 


